BFBS…PT I

By Phil Hecken, on April 18th, 2010

By Phil Hecken, with James Huening

“Black For Black’s Sake” — or BFBS — it’s the second entry in the Uni Watch Glossary. It’s defined in there as “a reference to teams that gratuitously add black to their uniform design even though black was never one of their team colors.” Fittingly, the example is the New York Mets, the poster child for this seemingly endless fashion statement. We can argue when it began (quite possibly it’s more than 50 years old), or if it will ever end, or even what it really is, or even if the official Uni Watch definition is complete. My collaborator for this piece, James Huening has gone to great lengths to tackle what he feels constitutes BFBS.

We’d had the ‘parameters’ for this post in the works for some time, and have in fact planned to do a poll on BFBS, but for this initial salvo, James has given examples of what he considers BFBS teams in the three major sports, plus the NHL. His “definition” (as well as what he considers “good” BFBS teams) differs from mine — and I’m sure your definition may differ from his, mine and that found in the Uni Watch glossary. Because with BFBS, there some black (tongue pressed firmly in cheek) and white…but mostly a lot of gray…areas.

Let’s start with James’ very diligent efforts at exploring some teams he considers to be “BFBS.” Today, we’ll only look at the professional sports, but there are certainly many college teams that would be considered to have a uniform that is, quite simply, black for black’s sake. Here’s James:

~~~

Black for black’s sake? We toss that expression (or its abbreviation) around like an epithet. So that means it’s always a bad thing, right? I mean, it does smack of laziness to just throw a black jersey out there or add black accents to your uniform, whether it’s part of the existing color scheme or not.

So is BFBS by its very nature a bad thing? Let’s see. Obviously, teams that have “always” (during my lifetime) worn black are exempt:

Orioles, Raiders, etc. But there are literally dozens of teams that have either added black to their existing colors or changed their official colors completely to include black.

If you ask me, this usually is a bad thing, but not always. Now, I don’t intend to give a complete rundown of every team that’s ever started wearing black at some point in its history, but I’d like to give a few examples both good and bad changes to include black.

MLB – Good:

Mets: I suppose I risk a banning here, but I’ve never had a problem with the addition of black to the Mets’ uniforms, but ONLY because there is the historical tie-in with the Giants. Do I love everything about the way the Mets use black? No. For one thing, the black jerseys look terrible. I also don’t care for the dropshadows on the pinstriped unis. And the two-tone helmets look ridiculous. But I actually don’t mind the inclusion of black on the primary home and road jerseys.

White Sox: Why? For one thing, they were essentially the first MLB team to do it. For another, the uniforms look great compared with the bland, uninspired ones they replaced. And really, weren’t there enough teams wearing blue and red in 1990? Plus, black was in their color history. One caveat –- they wear their black jerseys way too often. It ain’t an alternate when you wear it more often than your primary, fellas.

A’s: Never at any point in their history have the Athletics worn black. It’s not part of their official color scheme, so why do they have a black jersey and cap?

NBA – Good:

Magic: For one thing, they chose their colors at a time when black was starting to really take off, but before it had flooded the market, so to speak. Plus, I really like the combination of black & (light) royal blue.

NBA – Bad:

Knicks: The home unis aren’t too bad. A little black as an accent color actually looks pretty nice. The road uniforms, on the other hand, are brutal. And unlike their crosstown baseball counterparts, the Knickerbockers do not have a historical color scheme that features black to point to as inspiration. And let’s not forget the St. Paddy’s unis, either. Take the black out and replace it with blue and maybe they’re less offensive.

Penguins: So they weren’t the first NHL team to change to a primarily black color scheme. The Canucks beat them to it. But when they did make the switch, it was well before black became trendy in sports uniforms and it aligned them, color-wise, with Pittsburgh ’s other big league teams. Too bad they switched to Vegas gold, though.

Thanks Jimbo, for that pretty comprehensive look at BFBS, or at least what you feel constitutes it. Of course, I agree with a good number of your selections (although not necessarily your “good” or “bad” choices). Clearly, the New York Mets are the poster child for BFBS, but they’re far from alone.

I think I’d adhere much more strictly to the Uni Watch Glossary definition of BFBS — that is, the substitution of black for another color (usually white) for no apparent reason and when black had not been a previous color of the team. This includes the addition of black outlines or drop shadow, to supplement an existing uniform.

It also includes the introduction of an alternate uniform, created WHETHER OR NOT black was an existing color, merely for the sake of adding a black alternate. Perfect examples of this include the Carolina Hurricanes, the San Jose Sharks, Baltimore Ravens, Chicago Bulls, and Pittsburgh Pirates. Black is “indeed” a part of each of those teams color schemes, but a PRIMARY BLACK uniform does not exist. Therefore, in my opinion, this is BFBS.

The examples James gave of the Oakland A’s, New York Mets, Toronto Blue Jays and Detroit Lions — to which I would add the Kansas City Royals, who mercifully ditched the black when the fad ended, (but there are others who replace basically a white jersey with a black one) — are to me, the most egregious and insidious form of BFBS: the addition of black to a uniform where it had never existed before. Teams like the Eagles (with a black pants stripe), Hurricanes (black hurricane tropical storm flag) and Sharks (black pants) may have already had black in their color scheme — but never FORCED a black alternate upon us –until they could.

Then, there is a third category of BFBS, which James also covered nicely, with teams adding black (although not creating a primary black uniform) like the Celtics, Knicks and Flames. None of those teams had black as any part of their colorscheme, yet they added black for no other reason, than for black’s sake.

So, in my opinion, BFBS encompasses those three categories. But is BFBS always bad? (Jimbo doesn’t think so.) I think you can make an argument that not all BFBS uniforms look bad (certainly, I think the Ravens can sometimes pull off the look, and well…ravens really are pretty much black), and, while we’re not discussing college teams and BFBS today, I have to admit that nobody pulls of BFBS like the Oregon Ducks can. I detest BFBS, but the Ducks and Ravens can make it look good, for some reason.

Other teams, though, just don’t get it. The feel that by adding black, whether because it’s “hip” or to increase sales (everyone wants a black jersey, right?), they are simply creating a uniform that didn’t need to be created. I’m quite frankly surprised the Reds didn’t logically progress to this awful thing (stopping short of their Queens counterparts), before returning to their senses a few years ago.

Finally, do teams themselves create the demand for black, or the fans, or is it a combination? Whether or not you like the Lakers colors of purple and gold, they are classic and distinctive. But, with BFBS, how soon is it before we see Kobe wearing this? You might look at that and say, “wow! that’s poppin!” (or whatever the term is these days). Remember a few years back when the NFL had black fashion jerseys? If you sat in Arrowhead on a cold December afternoon with the Chiefs mired in a seven game losing streak and they came out in this “slump buster”, how would you feel? Or, because we all know how much Rex Ryan loves black, what if the Jets opened their MNF season in the new Meadowlands in this beauty? You can laugh and say, “that will never happen,” but stranger things have happened.

OK, I’ve rambled far too long as it is, but you begin to get the point. BFBS is not only a late-90’s phemenon, but one that continues to permeate the uniform world. I’m sure there are many examples of BFBS in the pros even James and I didn’t find — so we’re hoping you can.

What we’d like from you, aside from a mature and intelligent discussion of the BFBS syndrome, is to list your candidates for the worst and best BFBS teams. We’ll be conducting a poll on this in the near future, and we need your suggestions. So fire away.

~~~~~~~~~~

Every once in a while Mick gets a brilliant idea. Today is not one of those days…or is it?.

Stay tuned after today’s Benchies for an important announcement, k?

Here’s Rick:

Life imitates art. Art limitates life. Art also imitates Willie Stargell’s batting stance, but that’s a different Art altogether. The point is, every once in awhile something cosmic comes along. It speaks to us, touches us, inspires us. So we build a wiffleball field that looks like Fenway Park. Or something. Just because it’s worth doing.

AND NOW, an announcement about Benchies, from its creator, Rick Pearson, who has a simple “feedback request” from UW readers:

Does anyone read “Benchies”? One way to get some idea is very simple. If you read “Benchies” regularly, please send an e-mail with “YES” on the subject line to this address.

Thanks, Rick Pearson

~~~

Thanks Rick. So folks, if you read and enjoy (or even don’t like) Benchies, just let him know, ok? OK!

~~~~~~~~~~

From The Squiddie Files: Back again with our Life Coach, Lance Smith, who has put together another genius set from the Squiddie Files — a sort of “Best Of” Squiddie (although I must confess, I honestly don’t recall seeing many of the pics you’re about to see in the comments). No matter, even if you’ve seen one or all before, they’re always worth another look-see. And boy, are these worth it. Here’s Lance:

~~~

You know how when TV shows get lazy they run a clip show? A clip show is just a bunch of clips from previous shows packed into a superfluous surrounding story line. If it’s a science fiction show, someone will have some strange disease causing them to flash back to previous episodes. So imagine you’ve been bitten by a radioactive squid and while the doctors try to save you we present My Favorite Life photos.

Why? ‘Cause I had a ticket to Thursday’s Red Sox-Twins game.

Let’s look at some photos.

1. Eddie Gaedel in St. Louis. At the moment there are only three photos of Gaedel in his one appearance for the Browns: front, back and in the dugout. I keep hoping more will turn up as they add more material to the archives.

9. Ben Agajanian talking with a coach of the Los Angeles Dons. (Nice logo!) Agajanian had four toes crushed in a work accident, but went on to kick in the NFL, AAFC and AFL. Just remember to keep your head down

Guess The Game From The Scoreboard: More baseball today, and today we get a look at a pro scoreboard hosting non-pro teams. No, it’s not the Mets and Nationals, but that wouldn’t be a bad guess. Difficulty level on this is probably pretty low, but what the hey. Ready? Guess The Game From The Scoreboard. Date, location and final score, please, and be sure to link to your answer. And, as always, if you enjoy the game, please send me some new scoreboards! Drop me a line. Thanks!

~~~~~~~~~~

Back again with more Uniform Tweaks, Concepts and Revisions today. Lots to get to, and if you have a tweak, change or concept for any sport, send them my way.

~~~

First up today is Gary Tyler who has a change for the Buffalo Bills:

Same design as the Packers jerseys, and could it possibly be the first team to go with two helmets???? Plus check out dem socks.

~~~

UW stalwart Mike Engle is back with the crayolas…and this Kings of LA tweak:

Phil:

In my steadfast insistence on not going bankrupt thanks to Uni Watch by buying Photoshop, I’m back with a NHL tweak, with good old paper and colored pencils. Too bad my scales are way off for these, though. Before my Olympic round, I drew a hockey template, scanned it to my computer, and now print a copy when needed, but I must have had the wrong zoom while printing this time, so things are a little squished.

Without further ado, my next patients are the Los Angeles Kings. They get a new purple jersey and a similar white jersey WITHOUT black, because the Kings fail to realize that too much black and too much purple at once yields too much fail. It’s basically a throwback mashup while sticking to purple and gold, the original Lakers-inspired colors. (So all the text inside the crest that is in lead pencil should be purple, not graphite. Sorry.) A Marcel Dionne base, the Gretzky logo recolored, and what’s that on the sleeve patch? Yes, the return of the Burger King! (Note: I redid the crown in the chevron to match the crown on the king’s head.) As for the white jersey, sorry for so many pencil guidelines. I was going to stick to the same template, but I decided at the last minute that purple sleeves on the white jersey wouldn’t look so nice.

Now for those of you wondering why I didn’t make a gold jersey, it’s because I align closer to Ricko than The Jeff. White vs color works better for my eyes. And as much as I hate gold Lakers vs orange Suns in the NBA, I would despise gold Kings vs orange Flyers even more. If I would have made a gold jersey, it probably would have been an exact reversal of the purple. If said gold jersey became a third, I’d understand and concede, though I’d rather see the real Gretzky silver and black set as the third set. For my redesigns, I’d like to see these sets accompanied by white gloves. No team has primarily white gloves, so as a nod to Michael Jackson and LA’s entertainment tradition, I figure that no other team is better qualified to wear white gloves. (Yes, wise guys, all players would have to wear TWO white gloves, not just one: equipment rules are equipment rules.) Finally, league permitting, in honor of the Staples Center, pending NHL approval, the Kings could have a special jersey with this template in Clippers’ colors for April Fools’ Day. I think I’m kidding.

Sincèrement vôtre,

MIKE ENGLE

~~~

And in the three-spot, we have James Comfort who has some NFL redesigns:

Fresh off my loss in the NFL Jersey contest – OK, maybe not fresh since it was, what, a month ago – I’m back with some uni tweaks that could actually be viable NFL uniforms. Not, you know, pure fantasy. But I digress…

The Lions seem stuck as a team when it comes to unis. What do they want: silver or black? I couldn’t decide myself. So I did both. First, if Detroit removed black: Home. Road. Next, if they removed silver and went all out new school: Home. Road.

The Titans have one of the best color combos in the NFL, and it’s about time they started doing it justice. Home. Road. Home Alt. Road Alt.

I love the Bears current unis, but I feel like they are one of the few — maybe the only — teams that could pull off being even more traditional. Home. Road.

And finally, Washington. At first I tried to think of a conceivable new name, since I do believe they won’t be the Redskins by the end of the decade, probably sooner. But my imagination failed me. Instead I borrowed a DC logo and made their gorgeous colors into a good uni. Home. Road.

I think we should have an NFL Pants contest next. That’d be fun.

-James Comfort

~~~

And finally, William Milberger checks in with a ‘tweak’ that may be a most depressing reality:

I got a tip from a pretty reliable source that there’s going to be new alternates for the Cleveland Browns.

Now playing left field, Jerry Garcia… In case you missed yesterday’s doubleheader between the Cardinals and the Mets, I offer you proof that Tim McCarver has really begun mailing it in. I’d say any announcer is entitled to his share of mistakes after 20 innings of baseball, but here’s how Tim began the game. At least he didn’t refer to Chris Carpenter as Karen.

~~~~~~~~~~

And what was up with the Indians caps yesterday? They were sporting some sort of tan cap, which was apparently not sweat resistant. If you scroll all the way down to the bottom of this article, it tells us: “Indians players wore brown hats made of recycled material Saturday. The Indians are among several other area companies stressing environmental actions and awareness.” So, they created a new cap to stress the importance of recycling? Wonder if they’ll ever wear them again…

~~~

Everyone have a great Sunday.

~~~

It’s like, how much more black could this be? and the answer is none. None more black. — Nigel Tufnel

The Magic’s original road uniforms were black. They added blue as an alt, and eventually made blue the primary road color. Unless you’re calling the original choice of black BFBS, I don’t think you can count the Magic.

I think of the Penguins as BFPS (black for Pittsburgh’s sake), not BFBS. In fact, when they switched in 1980, it was hard to find any Penguin sweater available at retail. By the time the Kings went black and silver, merchandising would have been a much greater consideration.

Do you consider the Pirates’ and Giants’ black jerseys of the late ’70s BFBS, or was it just color for color’s sake like the gold and orange jerseys were?

The Jeff|
April 18, 2010 at 7:56 am |

I really don’t think you can count the Ravens or Panthers in the BFBS club, good or bad. Both teams started with black as a team color.

I’d say the Lions ORIGINAL addition of black was bad, it looked almost like random usage of electrical tape on the jerseys – but the current version is pretty good.

The trend has been going strong for at least 20 years now, so it’s not like it’s going away anytime soon. The best way to judge a BFBS uniform is by the overall design. Whether the team has any good reason to use black is pretty much irrelevant because they’re going to do it anyway, but what matters is whether or not they do a good job of incorporating it. Tennessee, for example, wore a black jersey while having ABSOLUTELY NO BLACK ANYWHERE ELSE on the uniform – and it looked beyond stupid. That qualifies as BAD BFBS. The Lions, on the other hand, are currently using the black consistently as a trim color, and it works.

As for the term itself, I think it needs a time limit. When a team first makes a change, it can qualify. When they continue to use it for an extended period, at some point you have to suck it up and accept it as part of the scheme. (I’m looking at you, Mets fans, it’s been over a decade now, it isn’t going away.)

I’ll also say that the most blatant BFBS, trend following uniform in all of sports history was the late 90’s Detroit Pistons. The team switched from red white & blue, to teal & black – and then switched back again. Now that was lame.

JTH|
April 18, 2010 at 8:05 am |

[quote comment=”386206″]The Chicago Blackhawks should be under the NHL “Bad” heading. I hate their black jerseys.[/quote]
A) Under my rules, they don’t qualify since not only have they been wearing black for my entire life, they’ve been wearing it since they entered the NHL.
B) They look great — best “full-time” thirds in the league.

JTH|
April 18, 2010 at 8:29 am |

[quote comment=”386208″]I really don’t think you can count the Ravens or Panthers in the BFBS club, good or bad. Both teams started with black as a team color.

I’d say the Lions ORIGINAL addition of black was bad, it looked almost like random usage of electrical tape on the jerseys – but the current version is pretty good.[/quote]
OK, I’m not going to reply to every single one of these, but I’ll admit that my criteria are completely arbitrary.

Ravens: I don’t care what the “official history” says or what the reasons were. They went from orange & brown to black, purple and gold.

Panthers: for expansion teams, if they came into being after black in sports became trendy, I included them in the BFBS club.

Lions: Yes, the current generation uses black better than the previous one, but their pre-black uniforms were my favorite NFL set. Their current ones pale in comparison.

M. Sullivan|
April 18, 2010 at 8:53 am |

I will probably be mauled for this, but I don’t mind black football alternates. Let me be more specific, I like black alternates for football teams when it is worn once a season, in a big home game. I think something like that could actually be exciting for fans and create a new feeling towards black alternates. Like so: http://www.thebevele...

Ricko|
April 18, 2010 at 9:00 am |

Seems to me there are several elements in this.

Black as a team color already.
The Blackhawks, for example. Hard to fault them for adding a black garment.

BTA.
Black trim or accents. This is not automatically horrid, if done with some restraint. Did I like it when the North Stars did it? Not particularly, but it didn’t radically change the overall look. Same with adding the drop shadow on the Mets home and road chest lettering. Not great, but not the end of the world, either.

Black in a Redsign.
Redesigning unis simultaneous to adding black as a team color…and using it full-on in the uni design. Eagles would fit here. Again, when it’s part of a redesign, not so bad, philosophically speaking.

Malignant BTA.
When BTA goes bad. When a team decides that BTA means adding a black article of clothing to a uni design that pre-dated their BTA is okay (see Mets, and others).

True BFBS.
When teams, such as Tennessee football, the Oakland A’s or numerous hoops teams such as West Virginia, up and decide to wear black garments just for the hell of it…when it’s not a team color. That is bullshit “look tough” pop pyschology, or nothing but marketing. Actually, it’s both.

—Ricko

Jeff E.|
April 18, 2010 at 9:01 am |

Haha…I actually just saw someone wearing that Chiefs black “fashion” jersey a few days ago (I live in Ohio). It took me a few seconds to figure out what it was when I first saw it.

JAson|
April 18, 2010 at 9:06 am |

It was Green Awareness day for the Indians. They gave the fans hats made out of recycled bottlecaps & the team wore New Era’s recycled 59Fifty.

He thinks those hats are the same color as the jerseys of the local NFL team?

“Hey, that’s what they call it the Salvation Army store where I get my clothes.”

—Ricko

Richard|
April 18, 2010 at 9:26 am |

The standards in this for BFBS are clearly way off base. Ricko’s notion of True BFBS seems like a more on-point expression of BFBS.

When black is a legitimate team color, they aren’t going BFBS- they’re wearing their colors. Thus, with the exception of the Mets, every one of the “good” illustrations is not doing BFBS.

scott|
April 18, 2010 at 9:31 am |

I sort of like the look of the Mets’ primary road grays. The black alts, though, not so much.

The black jerseys and caps worn by the Athletics have to be among the worst BFBS offenders in MLB.

The Jeff|
April 18, 2010 at 9:44 am |

[quote comment=”386212″]Seems to me there are several elements in this.

Black as a team color already.
The Blackhawks, for example. Hard to fault them for adding a black garment.

BTA.
Black trim or accents. This is not automatically horrid, if done with some restraint. Did I like it when the North Stars did it? Not particularly, but it didn’t radically change the overall look. Same with adding the drop shadow on the Mets home and road chest lettering. Not great, but not the end of the world, either.

Black in a Redsign.
Redesigning unis simultaneous to adding black as a team color…and using it full-on in the uni design. Eagles would fit here. Again, when it’s part of a redesign, not so bad, philosophically speaking.

Malignant BTA.
When BTA goes bad. When a team decides that BTA means adding a black article of clothing to a uni design that pre-dated their BTA is okay (see Mets, and others).

True BFBS.
When teams, such as Tennessee football, the Oakland A’s or numerous hoops teams such as West Virginia, up and decide to wear black garments just for the hell of it…when it’s not a team color. That is bullshit “look tough” pop pyschology, or nothing but marketing. Actually, it’s both.

—Ricko[/quote]

So how about we go with this:

Not BFBS: Black is a primary team color from the start of the franchise. Raiders, Saints, etc.

Pretty common knowledge that way back before the explosion in the cap & uni business, merchandisers noticed Raiders outsold everybody. The logo & black said tough guy to a certain segment of the pop. It took off exponentially from there. But anybody under 50 really doesn’t know how limited the palette was before fashion & fools started driving the team apparel market. Quality has greatly improved in the fabrication. But not so much when it comes to true creativity & taste.

Jon|
April 18, 2010 at 10:04 am |

I like that a couple of the Iron City Six were ready for the overhead shot–with the band name on TOP of their hats!

PS: BFBSS!

LI Phil|
April 18, 2010 at 10:20 am |

[quote comment=”386219″]anybody under 50 really doesn’t know how limited the palette was before fashion & fools started driving the team apparel market.[/quote]

“fashion and fools…”

awesome juke!

Larry Kurtze|
April 18, 2010 at 10:32 am |

[quote comment=”386214″]It was Green Awareness day for the Indians. They gave the fans hats made out of recycled bottlecaps & the team wore New Era’s recycled 59Fifty.

[/quote]

If promoting environmental awareness and recycling is a good thing, why didn’t they wear their blue alts with the khaki caps? That would have looked a ton better than khaki over cream.

Mark K|
April 18, 2010 at 10:45 am |

Or to be truly environmentally responsible the Tribe could have not manufactured one-off hats at all.

“reduce” is better than “recycle”

They could have announced the team would be going Tim Lincecum with their hats for the rest of the season.

Aaron|
April 18, 2010 at 10:49 am |

How about another definition – DCFDCS (Dress Code For Dress Code Sake)? Poor Andrew Bogut. Not only is he missing the playoffs, but he also has to wear a sports coat as a cape so he doesn’t get fined.

Pretty sad that William Milberger’s ‘tweak’ of the Cleveland Browns uniforms was taken from my Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia....). C’mon William, I highly encourage people coming up with their own designs, but please to not plagiarize somebody else’s work.

Greg B.|
April 18, 2010 at 11:04 am |

I watched 20 innings of the Mets (I know, I know) yesterday and over nearly 7 hours I cannot tell you how many times I thought that the black in their ensemble, be it the drop shadows on the lettering or the back and sorta-blue caps they were wearing, looked absolutely atrocious. Their color scheme should have ZERO black. A major fail to James for saying otherwise. And why does their blue, as on the caps and helmets, look more and more purplish to me lately?

I remember reading somewhere that the reason every team jumped onto black as part of a color scheme was that those items sold better in the stores due to the hip hop culture. Maybe true, maybe not, but it looks horrible in most cases.

The problem with a lot of black unis is that they look so much alike. Raiders and Steelers aside, the rest of the NFL just become anonymous when they wear black — Ravens, Jags, Falcons, whomever. I caught a bit of the Rcokies game last night and even though they were wearing vests, the black unis still looked boring and plain. And don’t even get me started on the Blue Jays — how a team with the word “Blue” in their name can wear a uni with virtually not a speck of blue anywhere escapes me. Black with blue or purple usually reminds me of a bruise anyway — thank goodness the Royals got away from that absurdity.

Matthew Robins|
April 18, 2010 at 11:07 am |

I appreciate black as a “color” because as a Colorado graduate, even though their official colors are silver and gold, black has become an integral part of their uniforms for a long, long time.

“The official colors of CU are silver and gold. According to the book Glory Colorado, these colors were adopted by the class of 1888, as a symbol of the mineral wealth of this state. But in 1921, as football became more popular, there were complaints from the students that silver and gold did not look good on football jerseys. In fact, silver and gold ended up looking like dirty gray and dark yellow. It wasn’t until 1959 that the football team changed its jerseys to black with yellow. And although the football team seems to have set the trend with its color choice, CU still has the official colors of silver and gold.”

Greg B.|
April 18, 2010 at 11:10 am |

BTW, I don’t think I’m crankier than usual today, but I have to say that the Saturday/Sunday sections of uni tweaks have become an automatic do-not-read for me. It was interesting when it first started, but it quickly became a “who cares” topic for me since they just appear randomly, vary tremendously in quality, take up a ton of space, and not as part of a contest or whatever now.

I really don’t mind teams experimenting with black in their uniforms. Nobody seems to get upset when a team wears white, so what’s the difference?

JimV19|
April 18, 2010 at 11:12 am |

[quote comment=”386223″]Or to be truly environmentally responsible the Tribe could have not manufactured one-off hats at all.

“reduce” is better than “recycle”

They could have announced the team would be going Tim Lincecum with their hats for the rest of the season.[/quote]

Amen.

JimV19|
April 18, 2010 at 11:16 am |

[quote comment=”386208″]I really don’t think you can count the Ravens or Panthers in the BFBS club, good or bad. Both teams started with black as a team color.

I’d say the Lions ORIGINAL addition of black was bad, it looked almost like random usage of electrical tape on the jerseys – but the current version is pretty good.

The trend has been going strong for at least 20 years now, so it’s not like it’s going away anytime soon. The best way to judge a BFBS uniform is by the overall design. Whether the team has any good reason to use black is pretty much irrelevant because they’re going to do it anyway, but what matters is whether or not they do a good job of incorporating it. Tennessee, for example, wore a black jersey while having ABSOLUTELY NO BLACK ANYWHERE ELSE on the uniform – and it looked beyond stupid. That qualifies as BAD BFBS. The Lions, on the other hand, are currently using the black consistently as a trim color, and it works.

As for the term itself, I think it needs a time limit. When a team first makes a change, it can qualify. When they continue to use it for an extended period, at some point you have to suck it up and accept it as part of the scheme. (I’m looking at you, Mets fans, it’s been over a decade now, it isn’t going away.)

I’ll also say that the most blatant BFBS, trend following uniform in all of sports history was the late 90’s Detroit Pistons. The team switched from red white & blue, to teal & black – and then switched back again. Now that was lame.[/quote]

I agree wholeheartedly with your first paragraph.

The second, not as much. I still can’t wrap my mind around a Lions uni with black.

I’m pretty much with you on the rest of your post as well.

CincyOldMan|
April 18, 2010 at 11:38 am |

When the new ownership group purchased the Reds a few years ago, they let it be known that they hated the black that had crept into not only the uniforms, but also the stadium. When they redesigned the uniforms to what you see now, they also started re-doing Great American Ball Park & replacing most of the black accents with red ones. (It looks MUCH nicer now around the park.)

Also, something to consider with the uniforms, is that a lot of player LOVE the black. From what I know in Cincinnati, some of the players nearly had the old ownership convinced to have an all black alternative for the weekends… that was junked just after the new ownership bought the team and replaced with (what I consider one of the best alternates in all of sports, though I am a little biased)the red ones worn now.

Pretty Boy Paulie|
April 18, 2010 at 11:41 am |

[quote comment=”386209″][quote comment=”386206″]The Chicago Blackhawks should be under the NHL “Bad” heading. I hate their black jerseys.[/quote]
A) Under my rules, they don’t qualify since not only have they been wearing black for my entire life, they’ve been wearing it since they entered the NHL.
B) They look great — best “full-time” thirds in the league.[/quote]

Ditto my good man! Ditto!
Black has ALWAYS been featured in the ‘Hawks unis.

I’m tired of the Hurricanes getting a pass on their black alternate jersey just because it’s part of their logo.

First rule: if you create an alternate jersey, it should be different that your everyday jerseys. Changing the colour but not the design? NOT AN ALTERNATE.

Alternate, by sports terms, means it is supposed to be different. I think we’re all smart enough to realize that changing a jersey colour from red or white to black is simply BFBS when no other major designs elements are introduced.

Now some will say “hold on Teebz… that there logo is diff’rent”. Except, in the world of nautical warnings, that there design doesn’t indicate a hurricane warning. Since it is a secondary logo already being worn on the primary jerseys, swapping the main logo to the shoulder in exchange for the secondary logo on the chest in about the laziest design element you can claim.

Thirdly, the Hurricanes, as James pointed out above, mimic the warning flags with their uniforms. So then this, because of this, would be right, making this, because of this, wrong. Or worse, the Carolina Hurricanes went to this, which doesn’t even exist. What the eff kind of nautical warning is that?

They went black for black’s sake just because they could, and they even desicrated the warning flag their colour scheme represents. BFBS? You betcha.

Pretty Boy Paulie|
April 18, 2010 at 11:47 am |

Top notch article Phil!

I presume you’ll be touching on BFBS atrocities in futbol, no? Like Mexico & Brazil.

[quote comment=”386235″]I’m tired of the Hurricanes getting a pass on their black alternate jersey just because it’s part of their logo.

First rule: if you create an alternate jersey, it should be different that your everyday jerseys. Changing the colour but not the design? NOT AN ALTERNATE.

Alternate, by sports terms, means it is supposed to be different. I think we’re all smart enough to realize that changing a jersey colour from red or white to black is simply BFBS when no other major designs elements are introduced.

Now some will say “hold on Teebz… that there logo is diff’rent”. Except, in the world of nautical warnings, that there design doesn’t indicate a hurricane warning. Since it is a secondary logo already being worn on the primary jerseys, swapping the main logo to the shoulder in exchange for the secondary logo on the chest in about the laziest design element you can claim.

Thirdly, the Hurricanes, as James pointed out above, mimic the warning flags with their uniforms. So then this, because of this, would be right, making this, because of this, wrong. Or worse, the Carolina Hurricanes went to this, which doesn’t even exist. What the eff kind of nautical warning is that?

They went black for black’s sake just because they could, and they even desicrated the warning flag their colour scheme represents. BFBS? You betcha.[/quote]

4th degree. Black’s one of the team colors. The reason behind it doesn’t matter.

Change, in the world of sports uniforms, is almost always for it’s own sake, whether it’s adding black, swapping colors, or a full overhaul with new logos. The only time it isn’t change for change sake is when it’s legally forced upon a team due to trademark/copyright issues or PC-bullshit-can’t-have-an-indian-mascot crap.

[quote comment=”386237″]
4th degree. Black’s one of the team colors. The reason behind it doesn’t matter.

Change, in the world of sports uniforms, is almost always for it’s own sake, whether it’s adding black, swapping colors, or a full overhaul with new logos. The only time it isn’t change for change sake is when it’s legally forced upon a team due to trademark/copyright issues or PC-bullshit-can’t-have-an-indian-mascot crap.[/quote]

Take your degrees elsewhere. I care not for them.

Wrong is wrong. There are no levels of wrongness that will make the wrong better.

JimV19|
April 18, 2010 at 12:23 pm |

Worst BFBS unis (even though his Falcons technically don’t qualify, I blame Jerry Galnville for this whole mess, by the way):

[quote comment=”386237″]The only time it isn’t change for change sake is when it’s legally forced upon a team due to trademark/copyright issues or PC-bullshit-can’t-have-an-indian-mascot crap.[/quote]

why does this sentiment not surprise me

The Jeff|
April 18, 2010 at 12:39 pm |

[quote comment=”386241″][quote comment=”386237″]The only time it isn’t change for change sake is when it’s legally forced upon a team due to trademark/copyright issues or PC-bullshit-can’t-have-an-indian-mascot crap.[/quote]

why does this sentiment not surprise me[/quote]

That’s easy. We’ve already had that discussion. I would hope you can remember things like that.

[quote comment=”386239″]

Take your degrees elsewhere. I care not for them.

Wrong is wrong. There are no levels of wrongness that will make the wrong better.[/quote]

Whatever man, I’m just trying to come up with a consistent way of classifying it. “Wrong is wrong” sounds way too much like “I don’t like it so it’s bad” which is the type of thing Ricko would bitch at me for saying.

Pretty Boy Paulie|
April 18, 2010 at 12:40 pm |

Dang! How’d I forget to show some love to Señor James Huening?! Good stuff my Man!

Also during the late 90’s Majestic was selling a line of black fashion jerseys. I remember very well, there was a BLACK SLEEVELESS Cubs jersey with the road script on it. I can’t find pics of it.

JimV19|
April 18, 2010 at 12:49 pm |

[quote comment=”386217″]The black jerseys and caps worn by the Athletics have to be among the worst BFBS offenders in MLB.[/quote]

In as much as they take the only green team in MLB and make them black, yes. I can handle some other teams playing with black, but keep the A’s green!

But…while the color in this case bugs me, the design is still a good one. I’d begrudgingly wear it.

LarryB|
April 18, 2010 at 12:53 pm |

[quote comment=”386228″]I appreciate black as a “color” because as a Colorado graduate, even though their official colors are silver and gold, black has become an integral part of their uniforms for a long, long time.

“The official colors of CU are silver and gold. According to the book Glory Colorado, these colors were adopted by the class of 1888, as a symbol of the mineral wealth of this state. But in 1921, as football became more popular, there were complaints from the students that silver and gold did not look good on football jerseys. In fact, silver and gold ended up looking like dirty gray and dark yellow. It wasn’t until 1959 that the football team changed its jerseys to black with yellow. And although the football team seems to have set the trend with its color choice, CU still has the official colors of silver and gold.”[/quote]

Interesting

The Jeff|
April 18, 2010 at 12:57 pm |

[quote comment=”386244″]

But…while the color in this case bugs me, the design is still a good one. I’d begrudgingly wear it.[/quote]

…and this is why the black thing became such a trend in the first place. Taken on their own, a lot of black jerseys do look damn good. It’s just in conjunction with the rest of the uniform and team history that it becomes a bad thing.

JimV19|
April 18, 2010 at 1:05 pm |

[quote comment=”386223″]Or to be truly environmentally responsible the Tribe could have not manufactured one-off hats at all.

“reduce” is better than “recycle”

They could have announced the team would be going Tim Lincecum with their hats for the rest of the season.[/quote]

But yesterday’s promotion just doesn’t cut the mustard (oh come on, if I didn’t go there, someone else would have). You want to really promote recycling, why not just make all future giveaway hats out of old bottles? Same with the giveaway toys.

Nice idea, but could have been done better. This seemed more like showing off than promoting awareness. And why not green? I wouldn’t have bought that either, but at least it would have made a little more sense than what they had.

David Gratt|
April 18, 2010 at 1:14 pm |

when I was in college (mid to late 80s) our women’s crew team (which *sucked*) shifted from columbia blue and white tops to black with columbia blue accents.

when I asked some of the rowers what was up with that they told me that there had been a study saying that teams play more aggressively in black. And they said that they felt more badass in black. Then they went and won a bunch of races.

Not sure if there actually was a study, but the ladies in question seemed to think that it felt more serious. The tops also looked pretty good as well. But I wonder if this *originally* got started by virtue of an academic study and was then picked up by the hip hop community, which converted to sales and marketing.

[quote comment=”386242″]
Whatever man, I’m just trying to come up with a consistent way of classifying it.

“Wrong is wrong” sounds way too much like “I don’t like it so it’s bad” which is the type of thing Ricko would bitch at me for saying.[/quote]

What part of what I said don’t you get?

If it’s wrong, IT IS WRONG.

There is no degree of wrongness or level of wrongness. There is a line drawn in the sand between right and wrong, and Carolina falls on the wrong side.

Simple and easy to classify.

matt in cleveland|
April 18, 2010 at 1:21 pm |

nice article today… the indians hats were horrible and the alt for them is supposed to be a sunday only jersey. although it is a lot better then the vests and stupid cursive “I” they used to wear. None of this compares to brown on brown if that is for real god help security at the stadium that day there may be a riot. please holmgren go back to tradition where cleveland was one of the rare teams that went white at home the majority of the season. if you do go brown jersey go orange pants… get rid of the brown pants!!!!!!!

[quote comment=”386230″]I really don’t mind teams experimenting with black in their uniforms. Nobody seems to get upset when a team wears white, so what’s the difference?[/quote]

The difference is that white is, by rule, a de facto color for everyone. They are required to have a white jersey (or make arrangements for a league approved alternative, such as Lakers gold at home). Hence, white is part of everyone’s color palette, officialy or not. The rules make it so.

Black didn’t evolve from the game itself. No game mandate to include it. It is added just because “it’s cool” and/or “it’s a gimmick that sells.”

—Ricko

pflava|
April 18, 2010 at 1:24 pm |

I still say we can all blame the LA Kings!

All good examples today of BFBS. I still think the Mets are the worst offenders, because black simply doesn’t belong anywhere near a beautiful color scheme like royal blue and orange.

Others:

The Sacramento Kings have fairly quietly been looking like shit in black for years now.

The Niners previous set significantly increased the black and looked awful.

The Anaheim Ducks added black out of nowhere a few years ago and honestly have some of the worst uniforms in professional sports. Unfortunately, the ones they had previously were so awful that their current black eyesores are seemingly forgiven. Not by me.

The previous Timberwolves black uni’s were some of the worst of all time. In any sport.

Peter|
April 18, 2010 at 1:24 pm |

I’d forgotten about the awful FSU football BFBS jerseys until JimV19 mentioned them.

As a Canes fan, I wish they kept the same red and black flags on the bottom of the sweaters that are on the main unis, but otherwise the black 3rd jersey is OK, no different than other teams promoting their accent color to be the main color of their alternates.

The Jeff|
April 18, 2010 at 1:26 pm |

[quote comment=”386249″][quote comment=”386242″]
Whatever man, I’m just trying to come up with a consistent way of classifying it.

“Wrong is wrong” sounds way too much like “I don’t like it so it’s bad” which is the type of thing Ricko would bitch at me for saying.[/quote]

What part of what I said don’t you get?

If it’s wrong, IT IS WRONG.

There is no degree of wrongness or level of wrongness. There is a line drawn in the sand between right and wrong, and Carolina falls on the wrong side.

Simple and easy to classify.[/quote]

So, the Hurricanes shouldn’t wear black, even though it’s a team color, because the hurricane flag is red. Ok. So, Patriots throwbacks – are those wrong? AFterall, the red coats were the bad guys in that war. And I guess someone better inform the University of Miami that they need to change their colors. Can’t have hurricanes that aren’t mostly red with black trim now can we?

I’m hoping that this is Pt. 1 because Pt. 2 will examine the NCAA. There’s plenty of material there.

JimV19|
April 18, 2010 at 1:30 pm |

[quote comment=”386248″]when I was in college (mid to late 80s) our women’s crew team (which *sucked*) shifted from columbia blue and white tops to black with columbia blue accents.

when I asked some of the rowers what was up with that they told me that there had been a study saying that teams play more aggressively in black. And they said that they felt more badass in black. Then they went and won a bunch of races.

Not sure if there actually was a study, but the ladies in question seemed to think that it felt more serious. The tops also looked pretty good as well. But I wonder if this *originally* got started by virtue of an academic study and was then picked up by the hip hop community, which converted to sales and marketing.[/quote]

As a Canes fan, I wish they kept the same red and black flags on the bottom of the sweaters that are on the main unis, but otherwise the black 3rd jersey is OK, no different than other teams promoting their accent color to be the main color of their alternates.[/quote]

And you returned the favor by reminding me of Duke and USC. They’re as bad as those other Hurricanes: http://miamisportsbl...

Clayton Lust|
April 18, 2010 at 1:40 pm |

[quote comment=”386226″]Pretty sad that William Milberger’s ‘tweak’ of the Cleveland Browns uniforms was taken from my Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia....). C’mon William, I highly encourage people coming up with their own designs, but please to not plagiarize somebody else’s work.[/quote]

I don’t think you’re being plagiarized – the Browns are actually using that as an alt this year – thus its not some readers tweak, but rather a tweak that is being implemented – your page was used to say “here’s what it will look like.”

Squiddie|
April 18, 2010 at 2:00 pm |

[quote comment=”386251″]

A little “Did You Know?” to go with this line: “During the Pirates’ run to the 1960 National League pennant, Joe Negri and Seymour Bloom wrote a raucous little novelty record called “Beat ‘Em, Bucs!”
[/quote]

[quote comment=”386255″]
So, the Hurricanes shouldn’t wear black, even though it’s a team color, because the hurricane flag is red. Ok. So, Patriots throwbacks – are those wrong? AFterall, the red coats were the bad guys in that war. And I guess someone better inform the University of Miami that they need to change their colors. Can’t have hurricanes that aren’t mostly red with black trim now can we?[/quote]

Here’s something rather unique, Jeff, since you haven’t comprehended one reason why black alternate jerseys are BFBS. Notice I made one word look different? Start reading, and start learning.

I want you to find out the number of NHL teams that have black listed as an official colour. Please post your answer in a future comment, and we can discuss why this trending towards black is definitely BFBS.

As for the rest of pro sports, I couldn’t give a rat’s ass if the Patriots came out in neon pink and yellow. The University of Miami doesn’t matter to me either. The could corsets and fishnet stockings in whatever colour they like if they wanted to.

My only concern is how good hockey looks, and, with all the bullshit black alternate uniforms, it looks like shit. Most notably in San Jose and Carolina. Got it?

bill|
April 18, 2010 at 2:06 pm |

The Ravens seem to cause confusion in this BFBS. They’ve always had black in the uniforms. But this statement is just ridiculous (or ignorant).

Ravens: I don’t care what the “official history” says or what the reasons were. They went from orange & brown to black, purple and gold.

I don’t really care what anyone thinks about the Browns moving to Baltimore. The fact is the Ravens left the orange & brown for Cleveland. They wanted no part of the Browns history and they officially left behind all the franchise records to the now Cleveland Browns.

[quote comment=”386259″][quote comment=”386226″]Pretty sad that William Milberger’s ‘tweak’ of the Cleveland Browns uniforms was taken from my Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia....). C’mon William, I highly encourage people coming up with their own designs, but please to not plagiarize somebody else’s work.[/quote]

I don’t think you’re being plagiarized – the Browns are actually using that as an alt this year – thus its not some readers tweak, but rather a tweak that is being implemented – your page was used to say “here’s what it will look like.”[/quote]

It’s NOT a 2010 alternate uniform for the Cleveland Browns. They have had the all-brown possibility since 2006 (when Reebok officially created them). They just wear them for road games. The Browns current 3rd uniform is the 1960 throwback uniform with numbers on the helmet and not TV numbers on the shoulders and this continues to be their 3rd uniform for the 2010 season as well.

And yes, that uniform was taken directly from my page (which I never mind if credit is properly given – Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License), but all he did was save my work and then re-uploaded onto his own website. That’s the only issue, nothing more.

We forgot one BFBS NHL team. The Minnesota North Stars/Dallas Stars. They are green and gold. Maybe kelly green, maybe forest green, maybe athletic gold, maybe metallic gold. But those are their colors, and the franchise is plagued by BFBS.
It all started with the gratuitous black accents on the Modano Minnesota jerseys. Now I don’t hate those as much as I should, because that mix of green, gold, and black look OK together (especially on the Jamaican flag), but that’s classic accent-style BFBS. It then devolved into the black “Stars without a home” jersey that served as the transition from Minnesota to Dallas. Didn’t like those one bit. And if THOSE aren’t BFBS, then the Pope isn’t Catholic.
Next, the “star” template jerseys. Liked those jerseys so much, I forgot the helmet, gloves, and breezers were black. I’ll call those “BFBS, not that it’s a bad thing this time.” And now the current crap. Both white jerseys (the collegiate one, and the one that actually has a logo on it) barely have any black, but their official home jersey is all black with no green. Terrible, terrible, terrible BFBS.
Very good article today, but I can’t believe the (North) Stars slipped under the radar. Not anymore.

[quote comment=”386262″]The Ravens seem to cause confusion in this BFBS. They’ve always had black in the uniforms. But this statement is just ridiculous (or ignorant).

Ravens: I don’t care what the “official history” says or what the reasons were. They went from orange & brown to black, purple and gold.

I don’t really care what anyone thinks about the Browns moving to Baltimore. The fact is the Ravens left the orange & brown for Cleveland. They wanted no part of the Browns history and they officially left behind all the franchise records to the now Cleveland Browns.[/quote]

You are incorrect. Art Modell wanted ALL of the Cleveland Browns history to transfer over with his move, but the NFL and the city of Cleveland step in a fought it. The city of Cleveland own their history, logos, colors, and etc.

Clayton Lust|
April 18, 2010 at 2:27 pm |

[quote comment=”386263″][quote comment=”386259″][quote comment=”386226″]Pretty sad that William Milberger’s ‘tweak’ of the Cleveland Browns uniforms was taken from my Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia....). C’mon William, I highly encourage people coming up with their own designs, but please to not plagiarize somebody else’s work.[/quote]

I don’t think you’re being plagiarized – the Browns are actually using that as an alt this year – thus its not some readers tweak, but rather a tweak that is being implemented – your page was used to say “here’s what it will look like.”[/quote]

It’s NOT a 2010 alternate uniform for the Cleveland Browns. They have had the all-brown possibility since 2006 (when Reebok officially created them). They just wear them for road games. The Browns current 3rd uniform is the 1960 throwback uniform with numbers on the helmet and not TV numbers on the shoulders and this continues to be their 3rd uniform for the 2010 season as well.

And yes, that uniform was taken directly from my page (which I never mind if credit is properly given – Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License), but all he did was save my work and then re-uploaded onto his own website. That’s the only issue, nothing more.[/quote]

I hear you but what was written was this:

And finally, William Milberger checks in with a ‘tweak’ that may be a most depressing reality:

I got a tip from a pretty reliable source that there’s going to be new alternates for the Cleveland Browns.

Here’s the link for the Browns new alternates this year.

I had no idea that they had an all-brown alt, and I follow the Browns fairly regularly, so perhaps this person didn’t either. The point is no one plagiarized you – William Milberger was reporting that the Browns were using a new alt (or what he thought was a new alt). He didn\’t say \”here\’s my tweak , which I secretly stole from someone\” and the Browns are actually using it – the columnist reported it under tweaks is all. Now if you’re calling BS because they didn’t say “by the way, the picture I’m using came from here” fine – but no one was saying “I created this.”

[quote comment=”386252″][quote comment=”386230″]I really don’t mind teams experimenting with black in their uniforms. Nobody seems to get upset when a team wears white, so what’s the difference?[/quote]

The difference is that white is, by rule, a de facto color for everyone. They are required to have a white jersey (or make arrangements for a league approved alternative, such as Lakers gold at home). Hence, white is part of everyone’s color palette, officialy or not. The rules make it so.

Black didn’t evolve from the game itself. No game mandate to include it. It is added just because “it’s cool” and/or “it’s a gimmick that sells.”

—Ricko[/quote]

I still think any team can use black if they choose too since it is a generic color anyways. MLB teams use gray for road uniforms, yet most do not have gray as one of their official colors. I do agree that some look ugly (Eagles and Athletics), but it really isn’t that big of a deal if a team wants to do it. Creating a new look is always fun.

Jeff P|
April 18, 2010 at 2:36 pm |

[quote comment=”386261″][quote comment=”386255″]
So, the Hurricanes shouldn’t wear black, even though it’s a team color, because the hurricane flag is red. Ok. So, Patriots throwbacks – are those wrong? AFterall, the red coats were the bad guys in that war. And I guess someone better inform the University of Miami that they need to change their colors. Can’t have hurricanes that aren’t mostly red with black trim now can we?[/quote]

Here’s something rather unique, Jeff, since you haven’t comprehended one reason why black alternate jerseys are BFBS. Notice I made one word look different? Start reading, and start learning.

I want you to find out the number of NHL teams that have black listed as an official colour. Please post your answer in a future comment, and we can discuss why this trending towards black is definitely BFBS.

As for the rest of pro sports, I couldn’t give a rat’s ass if the Patriots came out in neon pink and yellow. The University of Miami doesn’t matter to me either. The could corsets and fishnet stockings in whatever colour they like if they wanted to.

My only concern is how good hockey looks, and, with all the bullshit black alternate uniforms, it looks like shit. Most notably in San Jose and Carolina. Got it?[/quote]

The trouble is, you’re not arguing about BFBS. You’re arguing against crappy third jerseys, and perhaps the third jersey as a whole, and trying to wrap it as an objection to BFBS.

The Hurricanes have had black as a prominent part of their color scheme from the get go, and considering their inclusion of the red and black hurricane flag motif, it makes a lot of sense for black to be part of the scheme. Their black third is not BFBS. Is it bad design? That’s certainly arguable. It’s certainly not without flaws.

But it’s not BFBS. Neither is something like the Sens third, but the sens third sure as hell is bad design and should be burned a la the bronco’s socks.

[quote comment=”386269″]
The trouble is, you’re not arguing about BFBS. You’re arguing against crappy third jerseys, and perhaps the third jersey as a whole, and trying to wrap it as an objection to BFBS.

The Hurricanes have had black as a prominent part of their color scheme from the get go, and considering their inclusion of the red and black hurricane flag motif, it makes a lot of sense for black to be part of the scheme. Their black third is not BFBS. Is it bad design? That’s certainly arguable. It’s certainly not without flaws.

But it’s not BFBS. Neither is something like the Sens third, but the sens third sure as hell is bad design and should be burned a la the bronco’s socks.

Black does not BFBS make.[/quote]

If black was part of the primary jerseys when they were unveiled as primary colour where it was worn as more than just a stripe or accent colour, then it is BFBS.

Alternates that are black ARE BFBS since the team chose not to have their home jersey as a black jersey.

[quote comment=”386264″]We forgot one BFBS NHL team. The Minnesota North Stars/Dallas Stars. They are green and gold. Maybe kelly green, maybe forest green, maybe athletic gold, maybe metallic gold. But those are their colors, and the franchise is plagued by BFBS.
It all started with the gratuitous black accents on the Modano Minnesota jerseys. Now I don’t hate those as much as I should, because that mix of green, gold, and black look OK together (especially on the Jamaican flag), but that’s classic accent-style BFBS. It then devolved into the black “Stars without a home” jersey that served as the transition from Minnesota to Dallas. Didn’t like those one bit. And if THOSE aren’t BFBS, then the Pope isn’t Catholic.
Next, the “star” template jerseys. Liked those jerseys so much, I forgot the helmet, gloves, and breezers were black. I’ll call those “BFBS, not that it’s a bad thing this time.” And now the current crap. Both white jerseys (the collegiate one, and the one that actually has a logo on it) barely have any black, but their official home jersey is all black with no green. Terrible, terrible, terrible BFBS.
Very good article today, but I can’t believe the (North) Stars slipped under the radar. Not anymore.[/quote]
Pictures to accompany this rant:
Minnesota North Stars, looking very good or great:http://www.pondrocke...
Minnesota North Stars, with a touch of black, which I should hate but I don’t:http://image01.deman...
“Stars Without a Home,” terrible BFBS:http://i209.photobuc...
“Stars Without a Home,” Destination Dallas:http://www.checkoutm...
The Star template, which I liked:http://cache.daylife...
And I cannot stress how much I hate this current black thing:http://nbcsportsmedi...

el scotto|
April 18, 2010 at 2:48 pm |

With all due respect, this BFBS argument is way too open ended. This entry essentially is saying that if you have even the slightest hint of black on your uniform, you’re using it for black’s sake.

As an Avs fan, the team has never put any emphasis on their black helmets or pants because (IMO) they aren’t a huge part of the uniform. If anything, the black is probably the best complement color to that jersey selection, much like using a white helmet to complement the white jerseys.
That’s not using BFBS, that’s using black for reasonable reasons.

matt in cleveland|
April 18, 2010 at 2:50 pm |

would there be such a large amount of arguing if the brown on brown was not so ugly!!!!!!!!!! idea for part 3 of the column BROWN FOR BROWN SAKE!! how to piss off your entire fanbase even more!!!!!!!!!!

Jack|
April 18, 2010 at 2:53 pm |

As far as the White Sox go, I support their black (and I’m a Tigers fan). It’s not like you can really go anywhere with the colors in your nick name. What, you really think their colors should just be “white”? And if they wore another color instead of black for some reason I feel like that would detract from the “white” part of the “White Sox.” I mean, if they wore green instead of black you might as well just call them the Green Sox. But the black is fairly neutral when paired with white so I think it works.

[quote comment=”386272″]With all due respect, this BFBS argument is way too open ended. This entry essentially is saying that if you have even the slightest hint of black on your uniform, you’re using it for black’s sake.

As an Avs fan, the team has never put any emphasis on their black helmets or pants because (IMO) they aren’t a huge part of the uniform. If anything, the black is probably the best complement color to that jersey selection, much like using a white helmet to complement the white jerseys.
That’s not using BFBS, that’s using black for reasonable reasons.[/quote]
I disagree with the part I made bold.
The Avalanche supposedly kept the red and blue for the old Quebec Nordiques, but changed the shades to make their own identity. They can have the silver, but black is NOT a team color, yet they wear it anyway. BFBS.
Now, what the Avs should have done was pick navy as their new shade of blue, and replace all their current “equipment black” with navy. Can we get a Photoshop of that? It will look a trillion times better.

Eric B in KC|
April 18, 2010 at 2:54 pm |

Alex Gordon, Royals third baseman, is back in the majors after starting the season in the minors on a rehab assignment. According to Royals’ Analyst Frank White, Alex had to wear high socks in the minors, decided he liked the look and will wear them the rest of the season in the majors.

he’s also trying to grow a spoon broom.

LI Phil|
April 18, 2010 at 2:57 pm |

[quote comment=”386262″] The fact is the Ravens left the orange & brown for Cleveland. They wanted no part of the Browns history and they officially left behind all the franchise records to the now Cleveland Browns.[/quote]

good excerpt from that article: After extensive talks between the NFL, the Browns and officials of the two cities, Cleveland accepted a legal settlement that would keep the Browns legacy in Cleveland. In February 1996, the NFL announced that the Browns would be ‘deactivated’ for three years, and that a new stadium would be built for a new Browns team, as either an expansion team or a team moved from another city, that would begin play in 1999. Modell would in turn be granted a new franchise (the 31st NFL franchise), for Baltimore, retaining the current contracts of players and personnel. There would be a reactivated team for Cleveland, where the Browns’ name, colors, history, records, awards and archives would remain in Cleveland. The only other current NFL team to suspend operations without merging with another was Cleveland’s previous NFL team, the Rams, during the 1943 season at the height of World War II.

Justin Bates|
April 18, 2010 at 3:03 pm |

Cubs catcher Geovany Soto is wearing an odd chest protector. The pattern and the Rawlings logo is rather distracting. I thought it was a Cubs logo at first, but when there was a conference on the mound, I got a better look at it. It’s pretty difficult to view on TV.http://twitpic.com/1...

[quote comment=”386275″][quote comment=”386272″]With all due respect, this BFBS argument is way too open ended. This entry essentially is saying that if you have even the slightest hint of black on your uniform, you’re using it for black’s sake.

As an Avs fan, the team has never put any emphasis on their black helmets or pants because (IMO) they aren’t a huge part of the uniform. If anything, the black is probably the best complement color to that jersey selection, much like using a white helmet to complement the white jerseys.
That’s not using BFBS, that’s using black for reasonable reasons.[/quote]
I disagree with the part I made bold.
The Avalanche supposedly kept the red and blue for the old Quebec Nordiques, but changed the shades to make their own identity. They can have the silver, but black is NOT a team color, yet they wear it anyway. BFBS.
Now, what the Avs should have done was pick navy as their new shade of blue, and replace all their current “equipment black” with navy. Can we get a Photoshop of that? It will look a trillion times better.[/quote]

Therefore, they have every right to use black in any way they want on their uniforms.

Was black always one of their colors? Of course not, but it has been since at least 2007 and therefore it is now one of their official colors.

I really don’t get the big deal with a team introducing a new color. I like it.

Brian Erni|
April 18, 2010 at 3:11 pm |

On BFBS: a good recap, but the historical “link” for the Mets is weak. They chose orange for the Giants. That’s enough. I understand the point, but it’s sort of like saying “well, our colors are red, white and blue for the American flag…but the flag pole is silver so we’re going to add a silver alternate.” Not a perfect analogy, but you get the idea.

On McCarver, he also called Angel Pagan “Jose Pagan.” I mean…it’s Tim McCarver, so no one can be surprised. At least he sort of has an excuse in that Carlos Santana is the name of the Indians’ top catching prospect. His mind just skipped to him, right? Hey, it’s better than confusing a Cy Young award winner with a guitarist.

traxel|
April 18, 2010 at 3:17 pm |

Firstly: Black is marginal as a trim color for any team. It looks better with red than most other colors but I’m willing to (kinda) accept it as a trim color. (49ers, Football Cardinals, Lions)

Secondly: Black is acceptable as a field color only for teams that have black as a team color. And then it can only be used on either the jersey or the pants, not both at the same time. No solid blacks top to bottom. In baseball it can only be used as a field color once a week TOPS. White Sox, Raiders, Penguins)

Thirdly: Black is not acceptable as a field color for any team without black as a team color. Ever. (A’s, Royals, Rangers, Mets, Kansas State, Duke, Dallas Stars SHOULD be in this catagory)

All blacks are the worst in my book (basketball gets a pass on this as it is mildly acceptable there). The Stars, Penguins, Mizzou FB, Colorado FB, etc. are BORING and scare no one. Johnny Cash, Gary Player, Jerry Glanville, all lose points for being in black. To be PC about it, they are color challenged. Special, not gifted.

Komet17|
April 18, 2010 at 3:28 pm |

[quote comment=”386229″]BTW, I don’t think I’m crankier than usual today, but I have to say that the Saturday/Sunday sections of uni tweaks have become an automatic do-not-read for me. It was interesting when it first started, but it quickly became a “who cares” topic for me since they just appear randomly, vary tremendously in quality, take up a ton of space, and not as part of a contest or whatever now.

Just sayin’…[/quote]

I agree.

Vasav|
April 18, 2010 at 3:42 pm |

How about when the Georgia Bulldogs put on black helmets? I know as a Big Ten fan I’m accused of carig “too much” about tradition – but honestly, SEC teams wearing alternates, and changing iconic helmets, all is VERY disappointing.

Tennessee doing it up there is disappointing too.

Jim BC|
April 18, 2010 at 3:42 pm |

[quote comment=”386264″]We forgot one BFBS NHL team. The Minnesota North Stars/Dallas Stars. They are green and gold. Maybe kelly green, maybe forest green, maybe athletic gold, maybe metallic gold. But those are their colors, and the franchise is plagued by BFBS.
It all started with the gratuitous black accents on the Modano Minnesota jerseys. Now I don’t hate those as much as I should, because that mix of green, gold, and black look OK together (especially on the Jamaican flag), but that’s classic accent-style BFBS. It then devolved into the black “Stars without a home” jersey that served as the transition from Minnesota to Dallas. Didn’t like those one bit. And if THOSE aren’t BFBS, then the Pope isn’t Catholic.
Next, the “star” template jerseys. Liked those jerseys so much, I forgot the helmet, gloves, and breezers were black. I’ll call those “BFBS, not that it’s a bad thing this time.” And now the current crap. Both white jerseys (the collegiate one, and the one that actually has a logo on it) barely have any black, but their official home jersey is all black with no green. Terrible, terrible, terrible BFBS.
Very good article today, but I can’t believe the (North) Stars slipped under the radar. Not anymore.[/quote]
Totally agree Mike – Flames are my #1 but North Stars are up there too and both are poster boys for the BFBS shit. Again, why fix it if it ain’t broke? Thankfully, the flames have axed that hideous third with the horse head but the Stars have gone full on black. It started with the Modano era and just kept coming until they are now full on Black. Bad….

Vasav|
April 18, 2010 at 3:45 pm |

[quote comment=\”386281\”]Firstly: Black is marginal as a trim color for any team. It looks better with red than most other colors but I\’m willing to (kinda) accept it as a trim color. (49ers, Football Cardinals, Lions)

Secondly: Black is acceptable as a field color only for teams that have black as a team color. And then it can only be used on either the jersey or the pants, not both at the same time. No solid blacks top to bottom. In baseball it can only be used as a field color once a week TOPS. White Sox, Raiders, Penguins)

Thirdly: Black is not acceptable as a field color for any team without black as a team color. Ever. (A\’s, Royals, Rangers, Mets, Kansas State, Duke, Dallas Stars SHOULD be in this catagory)

All blacks are the worst in my book (basketball gets a pass on this as it is mildly acceptable there). The Stars, Penguins, Mizzou FB, Colorado FB, etc. are BORING and scare no one. Johnny Cash, Gary Player, Jerry Glanville, all lose points for being in black. To be PC about it, they are color challenged. Special, not gifted.[/quote]

[quote comment=”386266″][quote comment=”386263″][quote comment=”386259″][quote comment=”386226″]Pretty sad that William Milberger’s ‘tweak’ of the Cleveland Browns uniforms was taken from my Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia....). C’mon William, I highly encourage people coming up with their own designs, but please to not plagiarize somebody else’s work.[/quote]

I don’t think you’re being plagiarized – the Browns are actually using that as an alt this year – thus its not some readers tweak, but rather a tweak that is being implemented – your page was used to say “here’s what it will look like.”[/quote]

It’s NOT a 2010 alternate uniform for the Cleveland Browns. They have had the all-brown possibility since 2006 (when Reebok officially created them). They just wear them for road games. The Browns current 3rd uniform is the 1960 throwback uniform with numbers on the helmet and not TV numbers on the shoulders and this continues to be their 3rd uniform for the 2010 season as well.

And yes, that uniform was taken directly from my page (which I never mind if credit is properly given – Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License), but all he did was save my work and then re-uploaded onto his own website. That’s the only issue, nothing more.[/quote]

I hear you but what was written was this:

And finally, William Milberger checks in with a ‘tweak’ that may be a most depressing reality:

I got a tip from a pretty reliable source that there’s going to be new alternates for the Cleveland Browns.

Here’s the link for the Browns new alternates this year.

I had no idea that they had an all-brown alt, and I follow the Browns fairly regularly, so perhaps this person didn’t either. The point is no one plagiarized you – William Milberger was reporting that the Browns were using a new alt (or what he thought was a new alt). He didn\’t say \”here\’s my tweak , which I secretly stole from someone\” and the Browns are actually using it – the columnist reported it under tweaks is all. Now if you’re calling BS because they didn’t say “by the way, the picture I’m using came from here” fine – but no one was saying “I created this.”[/quote]
where is the link for the new Browns alternates?

jesse|
April 18, 2010 at 4:17 pm |

[quote comment=”386282″][quote comment=”386229″]BTW, I don’t think I’m crankier than usual today, but I have to say that the Saturday/Sunday sections of uni tweaks have become an automatic do-not-read for me. It was interesting when it first started, but it quickly became a “who cares” topic for me since they just appear randomly, vary tremendously in quality, take up a ton of space, and not as part of a contest or whatever now.

Just sayin’…[/quote]

I agree.[/quote]
Gotta disagree here, probably my fav posts of the week. Do I like all the tweaks? No. However, I find then very enjoyable. That, and the Sat./Sun. stuff is ALWAYS up by 0700. GTG.

[quote comment=”386285″] Johnny Cash, Gary Player, Jerry Glanville, all lose points for being in black. To be PC about it, they are color challenged. Special, not gifted.[/quote]
[/quote]http://www.theage.co...

[quote comment=”386279″][quote comment=”386275″][quote comment=”386272″]With all due respect, this BFBS argument is way too open ended. This entry essentially is saying that if you have even the slightest hint of black on your uniform, you’re using it for black’s sake.

As an Avs fan, the team has never put any emphasis on their black helmets or pants because (IMO) they aren’t a huge part of the uniform. If anything, the black is probably the best complement color to that jersey selection, much like using a white helmet to complement the white jerseys.
That’s not using BFBS, that’s using black for reasonable reasons.[/quote]
I disagree with the part I made bold.
The Avalanche supposedly kept the red and blue for the old Quebec Nordiques, but changed the shades to make their own identity. They can have the silver, but black is NOT a team color, yet they wear it anyway. BFBS.
Now, what the Avs should have done was pick navy as their new shade of blue, and replace all their current “equipment black” with navy. Can we get a Photoshop of that? It will look a trillion times better.[/quote]

Therefore, they have every right to use black in any way they want on their uniforms.

Was black always one of their colors? Of course not, but it has been since at least 2007 and therefore it is now one of their official colors.

I really don’t get the big deal with a team introducing a new color. I like it.[/quote]
I disagree with you again, that’s arguably the worst kind of “update.” If it took the Avs until 2007 to make black an “official color,” then they used a “not a team color” for 12 years, and tried to erase the mistake by swearing, “It’s not a mistake. See? Look, official color!” All while failing to realize that wearing black equipment looks like crap on the Avalanche, and that navy would have looked better AND more correct. Sorry, not buying it.

Oakville Endive|
April 18, 2010 at 4:42 pm |

Good topic.

The uni’s that have me talking back to the television set

1. The Celtics – for reasons given ( could you imagine the Montreal Canadiens adding black?)
2. Those silly baseball ones – Oakland, Kansas City, and off course my Blue Jays (I do a lot of talking back to the TV)
3. The Flames

And for the second straight day – I’ll pay homage to the Kansas Chiefs – who have not added any more black to their look (only the outlining of the arrowhead). Considering the direction of other teams that had red, gold and white colour schemes – Calgary Flames, Atlanta Hawks – I tip my hat (Houston Rockets went all over the place).

Interesting enough – the door was open to Dallas Cowboys to increase black to their uni -as their white uni, has always has a little – they never have – although their arena league team did.

Ricko|
April 18, 2010 at 4:44 pm |

[quote comment=”386268″][quote comment=”386252″][quote comment=”386230″]I really don’t mind teams experimenting with black in their uniforms. Nobody seems to get upset when a team wears white, so what’s the difference?[/quote]

The difference is that white is, by rule, a de facto color for everyone. They are required to have a white jersey (or make arrangements for a league approved alternative, such as Lakers gold at home). Hence, white is part of everyone’s color palette, officialy or not. The rules make it so.

Black didn’t evolve from the game itself. No game mandate to include it. It is added just because “it’s cool” and/or “it’s a gimmick that sells.”

—Ricko[/quote]

I still think any team can use black if they choose too since it is a generic color anyways. MLB teams use gray for road uniforms, yet most do not have gray as one of their official colors. I do agree that some look ugly (Eagles and Athletics), but it really isn’t that big of a deal if a team wants to do it. Creating a new look is always fun.[/quote]

That’s your opinion.
You asked why white was regarded differently.
I gave you an answer.

And that answer explains why black ISN’T the same as white. So, while your opinion may be that black is generic, the rules of the games we discuss here don’t say that it is. Black isn’t mentioned at all. White, however, is mandated somewhere in the games’ uniforms requirements, making it generic. Black is not. It has been DECLARED generic, independent of any defined need. It’s fashion only.

[quote comment=”386250″]nice article today… the indians hats were horrible and the alt for them is supposed to be a sunday only jersey. although it is a lot better then the vests and stupid cursive “I” they used to wear. None of this compares to brown on brown if that is for real god help security at the stadium that day there may be a riot. please holmgren go back to tradition where cleveland was one of the rare teams that went white at home the majority of the season. if you do go brown jersey go orange pants… get rid of the brown pants!!!!!!![/quote]

[quote comment=”386287″][quote comment=”386266″][quote comment=”386263″][quote comment=”386259″][quote comment=”386226″]Pretty sad that William Milberger’s ‘tweak’ of the Cleveland Browns uniforms was taken from my Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia....). C’mon William, I highly encourage people coming up with their own designs, but please to not plagiarize somebody else’s work.[/quote]

I don’t think you’re being plagiarized – the Browns are actually using that as an alt this year – thus its not some readers tweak, but rather a tweak that is being implemented – your page was used to say “here’s what it will look like.”[/quote]

It’s NOT a 2010 alternate uniform for the Cleveland Browns. They have had the all-brown possibility since 2006 (when Reebok officially created them). They just wear them for road games. The Browns current 3rd uniform is the 1960 throwback uniform with numbers on the helmet and not TV numbers on the shoulders and this continues to be their 3rd uniform for the 2010 season as well.

And yes, that uniform was taken directly from my page (which I never mind if credit is properly given – Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License), but all he did was save my work and then re-uploaded onto his own website. That’s the only issue, nothing more.[/quote]

I hear you but what was written was this:

And finally, William Milberger checks in with a ‘tweak’ that may be a most depressing reality:

I got a tip from a pretty reliable source that there’s going to be new alternates for the Cleveland Browns.

Here’s the link for the Browns new alternates this year.

I had no idea that they had an all-brown alt, and I follow the Browns fairly regularly, so perhaps this person didn’t either. The point is no one plagiarized you – William Milberger was reporting that the Browns were using a new alt (or what he thought was a new alt). He didn\’t say \”here\’s my tweak , which I secretly stole from someone\” and the Browns are actually using it – the columnist reported it under tweaks is all. Now if you’re calling BS because they didn’t say “by the way, the picture I’m using came from here” fine – but no one was saying “I created this.”[/quote]
where is the link for the new Browns alternates?[/quote]

*sigh*….NOTHING has changed for the 2010 Cleveland Browns. All uniforms and uniform combinations have existed since 2006. The Browns waited until the 2008 preseason to show off the brown pants that they have had since 2006 and finally wore them full-time for road games in 2009. This will be the same for the 2010 season. Their 3rd uniform (alternate/throwback) is the same one they’ve been wearing for the previous 3 seasons.

[quote comment=”386292″][quote comment=”386268″][quote comment=”386252″][quote comment=”386230″]I really don’t mind teams experimenting with black in their uniforms. Nobody seems to get upset when a team wears white, so what’s the difference?[/quote]

The difference is that white is, by rule, a de facto color for everyone. They are required to have a white jersey (or make arrangements for a league approved alternative, such as Lakers gold at home). Hence, white is part of everyone’s color palette, officialy or not. The rules make it so.

Black didn’t evolve from the game itself. No game mandate to include it. It is added just because “it’s cool” and/or “it’s a gimmick that sells.”

—Ricko[/quote]

I still think any team can use black if they choose too since it is a generic color anyways. MLB teams use gray for road uniforms, yet most do not have gray as one of their official colors. I do agree that some look ugly (Eagles and Athletics), but it really isn’t that big of a deal if a team wants to do it. Creating a new look is always fun.[/quote]

That’s your opinion.
You asked why white was regarded differently.
I gave you an answer.

And that answer explains why black ISN’T the same as white. So, while your opinion may be that black is generic, the rules of the games we discuss here don’t say that it is. Black isn’t mentioned at all. White, however, is mandated somewhere in the games’ uniforms requirements, making it generic. Black is not. It has been DECLARED generic, independent of any defined need. It’s fashion only.

That’s fact.

And that’s why it’s different.

—Ricko[/quote]

lol…and that’s your opinion as well. Black sells and it’s about $$$. I don’t have a problem with that. Furthermore, people actually go out a buy these products, so until that stops, teams will continue to look into fashion.

LI Phil|
April 18, 2010 at 4:53 pm |

[quote comment=”386287″]where is the link for the new Browns alternates?[/quote]

[quote comment=”386206″]The Chicago Blackhawks should be under the NHL “Bad” heading. I hate their black jerseys.[/quote]
Right. The Devils were listed as a “bad” example but at least give them credit for not foisting a primary black alternate on us!

Whew, what an issue of Uniwatch today. Quite a full plate for a Sunday…

[quote comment=”386281″]
Thirdly: Black is not acceptable as a field color for any team without black as a team color. Ever. (A’s, Royals, Rangers, Mets, Kansas State, Duke, Dallas Stars SHOULD be in this catagory)
[/quote]

A’s and Mets being the worst offenders, to my eyes. I just have to look away…

The 2nd pic isn’t their alternate. It’s a stolen pic from my wiki page. Here’s where it originally came from – http://en.wikipedia....

Ricko|
April 18, 2010 at 5:18 pm |

[quote comment=”386296″][quote comment=”386292″][quote comment=”386268″][quote comment=”386252″][quote comment=”386230″]I really don’t mind teams experimenting with black in their uniforms. Nobody seems to get upset when a team wears white, so what’s the difference?[/quote]

The difference is that white is, by rule, a de facto color for everyone. They are required to have a white jersey (or make arrangements for a league approved alternative, such as Lakers gold at home). Hence, white is part of everyone’s color palette, officialy or not. The rules make it so.

Black didn’t evolve from the game itself. No game mandate to include it. It is added just because “it’s cool” and/or “it’s a gimmick that sells.”

—Ricko[/quote]

I still think any team can use black if they choose too since it is a generic color anyways. MLB teams use gray for road uniforms, yet most do not have gray as one of their official colors. I do agree that some look ugly (Eagles and Athletics), but it really isn’t that big of a deal if a team wants to do it. Creating a new look is always fun.[/quote]

That’s your opinion.
You asked why white was regarded differently.
I gave you an answer.

And that answer explains why black ISN’T the same as white. So, while your opinion may be that black is generic, the rules of the games we discuss here don’t say that it is. Black isn’t mentioned at all. White, however, is mandated somewhere in the games’ uniforms requirements, making it generic. Black is not. It has been DECLARED generic, independent of any defined need. It’s fashion only.

That’s fact.

And that’s why it’s different.

—Ricko[/quote]

lol…and that’s your opinion as well. Black sells and it’s about $$$. I don’t have a problem with that. Furthermore, people actually go out a buy these products, so until that stops, teams will continue to look into fashion.[/quote]

Seriously? White jerseys are a requirement, black holds no such status…and you’re saying that’s all just my opinion?

I was explaining a fact, that white’s status as as a de facto color for everyone comes from the rules of the games. My opinion never entered into it. Show us, please, where black has that same position in the rules of the games involved.

Then will talk again, accurately, about what’s fact and what’s opinion.

[quote comment=”386303″][quote comment=”386296″][quote comment=”386292″][quote comment=”386268″][quote comment=”386252″][quote comment=”386230″]I really don’t mind teams experimenting with black in their uniforms. Nobody seems to get upset when a team wears white, so what’s the difference?[/quote]

The difference is that white is, by rule, a de facto color for everyone. They are required to have a white jersey (or make arrangements for a league approved alternative, such as Lakers gold at home). Hence, white is part of everyone’s color palette, officialy or not. The rules make it so.

Black didn’t evolve from the game itself. No game mandate to include it. It is added just because “it’s cool” and/or “it’s a gimmick that sells.”

—Ricko[/quote]

I still think any team can use black if they choose too since it is a generic color anyways. MLB teams use gray for road uniforms, yet most do not have gray as one of their official colors. I do agree that some look ugly (Eagles and Athletics), but it really isn’t that big of a deal if a team wants to do it. Creating a new look is always fun.[/quote]

That’s your opinion.
You asked why white was regarded differently.
I gave you an answer.

And that answer explains why black ISN’T the same as white. So, while your opinion may be that black is generic, the rules of the games we discuss here don’t say that it is. Black isn’t mentioned at all. White, however, is mandated somewhere in the games’ uniforms requirements, making it generic. Black is not. It has been DECLARED generic, independent of any defined need. It’s fashion only.

That’s fact.

And that’s why it’s different.

—Ricko[/quote]

lol…and that’s your opinion as well. Black sells and it’s about $$$. I don’t have a problem with that. Furthermore, people actually go out a buy these products, so until that stops, teams will continue to look into fashion.[/quote]

Seriously? White jerseys are a requirement, black holds no such status…and you’re saying that’s all just my opinion?

I was explaining a fact, that white’s status as as a de facto color for everyone comes from the rules of the games. My opinion never entered into it. Show us, please, where black has that same position in the rules of the games involved.

Then will talk again, accurately, about what’s fact and what’s opinion.

—Ricko[/quote]

If that’s the case, then by all means, please provide the link that states that white uniforms are required and gray uniforms are required in the MLB. All I’m asking is for the official rule. Please provide that link. Thank you.

[quote comment=”386304″]
If that’s the case, then by all means, please provide the link that states that white uniforms are required and gray uniforms are required in the MLB. All I’m asking is for the official rule. Please provide that link. Thank you.[/quote]

[quote comment=”386306″][quote comment=”386304″]
If that’s the case, then by all means, please provide the link that states that white uniforms are required and gray uniforms are required in the MLB. All I’m asking is for the official rule. Please provide that link. Thank you.[/quote]

“…each team shall have two sets of uniforms, white for home games and a different color for road games.”

No mention of black in there- imagine that.

You’re welcome.[/quote]

What about gray? It doesn’t mention that yet every MLB team has a gray uniform and gray is not one of their colors. And what about the NFL, NBA, and NHL?

Ricko|
April 18, 2010 at 5:45 pm |

[quote comment=”386304″][quote comment=”386303″][quote comment=”386296″][quote comment=”386292″][quote comment=”386268″][quote comment=”386252″][quote comment=”386230″]I really don’t mind teams experimenting with black in their uniforms. Nobody seems to get upset when a team wears white, so what’s the difference?[/quote]

The difference is that white is, by rule, a de facto color for everyone. They are required to have a white jersey (or make arrangements for a league approved alternative, such as Lakers gold at home). Hence, white is part of everyone’s color palette, officialy or not. The rules make it so.

Black didn’t evolve from the game itself. No game mandate to include it. It is added just because “it’s cool” and/or “it’s a gimmick that sells.”

—Ricko[/quote]

I still think any team can use black if they choose too since it is a generic color anyways. MLB teams use gray for road uniforms, yet most do not have gray as one of their official colors. I do agree that some look ugly (Eagles and Athletics), but it really isn’t that big of a deal if a team wants to do it. Creating a new look is always fun.[/quote]

That’s your opinion.
You asked why white was regarded differently.
I gave you an answer.

And that answer explains why black ISN’T the same as white. So, while your opinion may be that black is generic, the rules of the games we discuss here don’t say that it is. Black isn’t mentioned at all. White, however, is mandated somewhere in the games’ uniforms requirements, making it generic. Black is not. It has been DECLARED generic, independent of any defined need. It’s fashion only.

That’s fact.

And that’s why it’s different.

—Ricko[/quote]

lol…and that’s your opinion as well. Black sells and it’s about $$$. I don’t have a problem with that. Furthermore, people actually go out a buy these products, so until that stops, teams will continue to look into fashion.[/quote]

Seriously? White jerseys are a requirement, black holds no such status…and you’re saying that’s all just my opinion?

I was explaining a fact, that white’s status as as a de facto color for everyone comes from the rules of the games. My opinion never entered into it. Show us, please, where black has that same position in the rules of the games involved.

Then will talk again, accurately, about what’s fact and what’s opinion.

—Ricko[/quote]

If that’s the case, then by all means, please provide the link that states that white uniforms are required and gray uniforms are required in the MLB. All I’m asking is for the official rule. Please provide that link. Thank you.[/quote]

Seems to me I also asked you show us where black is mentioned as any kind of requirement. Gonna do that, or just gonna play, “Oh, yeah…well…”?

You know what, never mind. I apologize for trying to give you some background (which, by the way, you ASKED for). I’m sorry that background didn’t support your opinion that black has somehow become generic, completely independent of anything to do with the game…and that you don’t see that as coming under the heading of “fashion.”

[quote comment=”386309″][quote comment=”386304″][quote comment=”386303″][quote comment=”386296″][quote comment=”386292″][quote comment=”386268″][quote comment=”386252″][quote comment=”386230″]I really don’t mind teams experimenting with black in their uniforms. Nobody seems to get upset when a team wears white, so what’s the difference?[/quote]

The difference is that white is, by rule, a de facto color for everyone. They are required to have a white jersey (or make arrangements for a league approved alternative, such as Lakers gold at home). Hence, white is part of everyone’s color palette, officialy or not. The rules make it so.

Black didn’t evolve from the game itself. No game mandate to include it. It is added just because “it’s cool” and/or “it’s a gimmick that sells.”

—Ricko[/quote]

I still think any team can use black if they choose too since it is a generic color anyways. MLB teams use gray for road uniforms, yet most do not have gray as one of their official colors. I do agree that some look ugly (Eagles and Athletics), but it really isn’t that big of a deal if a team wants to do it. Creating a new look is always fun.[/quote]

That’s your opinion.
You asked why white was regarded differently.
I gave you an answer.

And that answer explains why black ISN’T the same as white. So, while your opinion may be that black is generic, the rules of the games we discuss here don’t say that it is. Black isn’t mentioned at all. White, however, is mandated somewhere in the games’ uniforms requirements, making it generic. Black is not. It has been DECLARED generic, independent of any defined need. It’s fashion only.

That’s fact.

And that’s why it’s different.

—Ricko[/quote]

lol…and that’s your opinion as well. Black sells and it’s about $$$. I don’t have a problem with that. Furthermore, people actually go out a buy these products, so until that stops, teams will continue to look into fashion.[/quote]

Seriously? White jerseys are a requirement, black holds no such status…and you’re saying that’s all just my opinion?

I was explaining a fact, that white’s status as as a de facto color for everyone comes from the rules of the games. My opinion never entered into it. Show us, please, where black has that same position in the rules of the games involved.

Then will talk again, accurately, about what’s fact and what’s opinion.

—Ricko[/quote]

If that’s the case, then by all means, please provide the link that states that white uniforms are required and gray uniforms are required in the MLB. All I’m asking is for the official rule. Please provide that link. Thank you.[/quote]

Seems to me I also asked you show us where black is mentioned as any kind of requirement. Gonna do that, or just gonna play, “Oh, yeah…well…”?

You know what, never mind. I apologize for trying to give you some background (which, by the way, you ASKED for). I’m sorry that background didn’t support your opinion that black has somehow become generic, completely independent of anything to do with the game…and that you don’t see that as coming under the heading of “fashion.”

—Ricko[/quote]

hahaha…calm down.

LI Phil|
April 18, 2010 at 5:54 pm |

[quote comment=”386306″][quote comment=”386304″]
please provide the link that states that white uniforms are required and gray uniforms are required in the MLB. All I’m asking is for the official rule. Please provide that link. Thank you.[/quote]

“…each team shall have two sets of uniforms, white for home games and a different color for road games.”

No mention of black in there- imagine that.

You’re welcome.[/quote]

thank you mark

Oakville Endive|
April 18, 2010 at 5:58 pm |

[quote comment=”386298″][quote comment=”386206″]The Chicago Blackhawks should be under the NHL “Bad” heading. I hate their black jerseys.[/quote]
Right. The Devils were listed as a “bad” example but at least give them credit for not foisting a primary black alternate on us!

Whew, what an issue of Uniwatch today. Quite a full plate for a Sunday…

-Jet[/quote]

Fully agree – while I agree with most of Phil and james list – but NJ – has stayed true to their red,black and white now for some time – no alternative , no nothing – and lets face it red, green and white – might have been distinctive – but it was not a great look

JTH|
April 18, 2010 at 6:08 pm |

[quote comment=”386277″][quote comment=”386262″] The fact is the Ravens left the orange & brown for Cleveland. They wanted no part of the Browns history and they officially left behind all the franchise records to the now Cleveland Browns.[/quote]

good excerpt from that article: After extensive talks between the NFL, the Browns and officials of the two cities, Cleveland accepted a legal settlement that would keep the Browns legacy in Cleveland. In February 1996, the NFL announced that the Browns would be ‘deactivated’ for three years, and that a new stadium would be built for a new Browns team, as either an expansion team or a team moved from another city, that would begin play in 1999. Modell would in turn be granted a new franchise (the 31st NFL franchise), for Baltimore, retaining the current contracts of players and personnel. There would be a reactivated team for Cleveland, where the Browns’ name, colors, history, records, awards and archives would remain in Cleveland. The only other current NFL team to suspend operations without merging with another was Cleveland’s previous NFL team, the Rams, during the 1943 season at the height of World War II.[/quote]
…yet I’m the one who made the statement that was just just ridiculous (or ignorant).

My point was this. The official history says that the Ravens are an expansion franchise. They aren’t. True, they had to come up with a new identity, but they weren’t forced to pick the name Ravens.

Anyway, they went with Ravens, which was a perfect excuse to feature black in their uniforms.

The difference is that white is, by rule, a de facto color for everyone. They are required to have a white jersey (or make arrangements for a league approved alternative, such as Lakers gold at home). Hence, white is part of everyone’s color palette, officialy or not. The rules make it so.

Black didn’t evolve from the game itself. No game mandate to include it. It is added just because “it’s cool” and/or “it’s a gimmick that sells.”

—Ricko[/quote]

I still think any team can use black if they choose too since it is a generic color anyways. MLB teams use gray for road uniforms, yet most do not have gray as one of their official colors. I do agree that some look ugly (Eagles and Athletics), but it really isn’t that big of a deal if a team wants to do it. Creating a new look is always fun.[/quote]

That’s your opinion.
You asked why white was regarded differently.
I gave you an answer.

And that answer explains why black ISN’T the same as white. So, while your opinion may be that black is generic, the rules of the games we discuss here don’t say that it is. Black isn’t mentioned at all. White, however, is mandated somewhere in the games’ uniforms requirements, making it generic. Black is not. It has been DECLARED generic, independent of any defined need. It’s fashion only.

That’s fact.

And that’s why it’s different.

—Ricko[/quote]

lol…and that’s your opinion as well. Black sells and it’s about $$$. I don’t have a problem with that. Furthermore, people actually go out a buy these products, so until that stops, teams will continue to look into fashion.[/quote]

Seriously? White jerseys are a requirement, black holds no such status…and you’re saying that’s all just my opinion?

I was explaining a fact, that white’s status as as a de facto color for everyone comes from the rules of the games. My opinion never entered into it. Show us, please, where black has that same position in the rules of the games involved.

Then will talk again, accurately, about what’s fact and what’s opinion.

—Ricko[/quote]

If that’s the case, then by all means, please provide the link that states that white uniforms are required and gray uniforms are required in the MLB. All I’m asking is for the official rule. Please provide that link. Thank you.[/quote]

Seems to me I also asked you show us where black is mentioned as any kind of requirement. Gonna do that, or just gonna play, “Oh, yeah…well…”?

You know what, never mind. I apologize for trying to give you some background (which, by the way, you ASKED for). I’m sorry that background didn’t support your opinion that black has somehow become generic, completely independent of anything to do with the game…and that you don’t see that as coming under the heading of “fashion.”

—Ricko[/quote]

hahaha…calm down.[/quote]

Not riled. Just realized you’re one of those people who asks, “Why?” and then argues with the reply because your mind was already made up.

That, of course, renders your questions and comments no longer worth a response.

—Ricko

LI Phil|
April 18, 2010 at 6:11 pm |

[quote comment=”386312″][quote comment=”386298″][quote comment=”386206″]The Chicago Blackhawks should be under the NHL “Bad” heading. I hate their black jerseys.[/quote]
Right. The Devils were listed as a “bad” example but at least give them credit for not foisting a primary black alternate on us!

Whew, what an issue of Uniwatch today. Quite a full plate for a Sunday…

-Jet[/quote]

Fully agree – while I agree with most of Phil and james list – but NJ – has stayed true to their red,black and white now for some time – no alternative , no nothing – and lets face it red, green and white – might have been distinctive – but it was not a great look[/quote]

while james listed the devils as “bad” BFBS, i wouldn’t agree with that — in fact, i wouldn’t even consider them to be BFBS — true, they switched from green to black (which i think was a bad switch), but i consider that as much as a color swap as anything else — they actually have a pretty distinctive look

i preferred their “throwbacks” (which were a much deeper hunter green than i remember) to their current set

now…if the devils were to come out with a THIRD jersey that IS black? that, my friends, would be BFBS

but swapping green for black? not so much

Jack|
April 18, 2010 at 6:11 pm |

[quote comment=”386281″] All blacks are the worst in my book (basketball gets a pass on this as it is mildly acceptable there). The Stars, Penguins, Mizzou FB, Colorado FB, etc. are BORING and scare no one. Johnny Cash, Gary Player, Jerry Glanville, all lose points for being in black. To be PC about it, they are color challenged. Special, not gifted.[/quote]

Also, I think having black and orange (or yellow or gold, as the case may be) as a color scheme and using predominately black is acceptable if your team is called the Tigers (or Bengals). Just cause, you know, Tigers actually have those colors.

LI Phil|
April 18, 2010 at 6:16 pm |

[quote comment=”386316″][quote comment=”386281″] Johnny Cash lose points for being in black. To be PC about it, they are color challenged. Special, not gifted.[/quote]

I think it is pretty good. Can’t believe no one has given this a whirl.

Terry D.|
April 18, 2010 at 6:24 pm |

What about Ohio State? Some of their teams use scarlet numbers with a black outline instead of a grey outline. Not to mention the black stripes in the striping pattern of their football team’s helmets. Would they be part of the BFBS trend?

bill|
April 18, 2010 at 6:33 pm |

You are incorrect. Art Modell wanted ALL of the Cleveland Browns history to transfer over with his move, but the NFL and the city of Cleveland step in a fought it. The city of Cleveland own their history, logos, colors, and etc.

You have selective memory. Baltimore backed Cleveland and the NFL in the agreement after the Cleveland lawsuit.

I think it is pretty good. Can’t believe no one has given this a whirl.[/quote]

heh…never posted these but i gave the niners a few alternate looks at one time, including…wait for it… a BFBS look (lol) — that last one was just for shits and giggles, but since it kinda ties in and shows alt looks

i really like the white pants look, myself, but there is certainly a reason for the 49ers to wear “gold”

Ricko|
April 18, 2010 at 7:08 pm |

[quote comment=”386320″]What about Ohio State? Some of their teams use scarlet numbers with a black outline instead of a grey outline. Not to mention the black stripes in the striping pattern of their football team’s helmets. Would they be part of the BFBS trend?[/quote]

There ya go. Mentioned them a while back, wondering if they weren’t among the first to go with BTA, at least as far back as the Howard (Hopalong) Cassady years.

They’re a perfect example of what I said early today, that BTA is not necessarily bad, not when it’s done with some restraint and the sense that it IS just an accent. I think the Buckeye football unis incorporate black about as well as it can done. That’s to say it serves a purpose without being intrusive and is used in a manner that would scarcely lead anyone to say black was one of “their colors” or that it would make a black jersey appropriate.

Dolphins’ navy kind of the same thing. Adds some definition and depth here and there but doesn’t really screw with the overall look.

—Ricko

Ricko|
April 18, 2010 at 7:13 pm |

[quote comment=”386322″][quote comment=”386319″]I just thought up a 49ers tweak

I think it is pretty good. Can’t believe no one has given this a whirl.[/quote]

heh…never posted these but i gave the niners a few alternate looks at one time, including…wait for it… a BFBS look (lol) — that last one was just for shits and giggles, but since it kinda ties in and shows alt looks

i really like the white pants look, myself, but there is certainly a reason for the 49ers to wear “gold”[/quote]

Basically (details different, of course; one of which–oh god no–was a black dropshadow on the numbers) what they wore in ’94, isn’t it? The white pants home and road, that is. With a gold helmet. Only year they ever did that.

—Ricko

—Ricko

Curt Rogers|
April 18, 2010 at 7:19 pm |

Great article on Russwood Park in Memphis, including a few old uni-related baseball photos:

I think it is pretty good. Can’t believe no one has given this a whirl.[/quote]

heh…never posted these but i gave the niners a few alternate looks at one time, including…wait for it… a BFBS look (lol) — that last one was just for shits and giggles, but since it kinda ties in and shows alt looks

i really like the white pants look, myself, but there is certainly a reason for the 49ers to wear “gold”[/quote]

Basically (details different, of course; one of which–oh god no–was a black dropshadow on the numbers) what they wore in ’94, isn’t it? The white pants home and road, that is. With a gold helmet. Only year they ever did that.

and wasn’t that supposed to be a throwback? so, it wouldn’t be the only year then, right? i mean, unless they were inventing shit then — or was that the only time they wore white pants with a gold helmet

I think it is pretty good. Can’t believe no one has given this a whirl.[/quote]

heh…never posted these but i gave the niners a few alternate looks at one time, including…wait for it… a BFBS look (lol) — that last one was just for shits and giggles, but since it kinda ties in and shows alt looks

i really like the white pants look, myself, but there is certainly a reason for the 49ers to wear “gold”[/quote]

Basically (details different, of course; one of which–oh god no–was a black dropshadow on the numbers) what they wore in ’94, isn’t it? The white pants home and road, that is. With a gold helmet. Only year they ever did that.

and wasn’t that supposed to be a throwback? so, it wouldn’t be the only year then, right? i mean, unless they were inventing shit then — or was that the only time they wore white pants with a gold helmet[/quote]

That was, like the Jets and Cowboys, a messed up throwback of ’94. Cowboys and 49ers wore their current helmets with the throwback gear. Jets wore a green thing with two white stripes (very Saskatchewan Roughriders, actually) that no one had ever seen on a NY Jet. And hasn’t since.

With that actual dropshadow uni, the 49ers wore, in different seasons, a plain white helmet and a red helmet with a single silver stripe (although in some photos the stripe looks gold).

So, yeah, ’94 is only time 49ers have worn a gold helmet with white pants. Ever.

—Ricko

Ricko|
April 18, 2010 at 7:45 pm |

Thinking about it again, the 49ers white helmet may not have been wore with the drop shadow jersey.

Doesn’t alter the point about the gold helmet with white pants, though.

—Ricko

Ricko|
April 18, 2010 at 7:55 pm |

[quote comment=”386245″][quote comment=”386228″]I appreciate black as a “color” because as a Colorado graduate, even though their official colors are silver and gold, black has become an integral part of their uniforms for a long, long time.

“The official colors of CU are silver and gold. According to the book Glory Colorado, these colors were adopted by the class of 1888, as a symbol of the mineral wealth of this state. But in 1921, as football became more popular, there were complaints from the students that silver and gold did not look good on football jerseys. In fact, silver and gold ended up looking like dirty gray and dark yellow. It wasn’t until 1959 that the football team changed its jerseys to black with yellow. And although the football team seems to have set the trend with its color choice, CU still has the official colors of silver and gold.”[/quote]

Something of an “asterisk” area in the BFBS discussion. Even though it involves incorporating a black garment, it really is almost an “accent” or “for definition/separation” because it separates two school colors of virtually equal color value, not only in black and white but in person.

And while they could use white to do that, I suppose, that wouldn’t solve the problem of what to do with the teams’ dark jerseys.

“Definition/separation” isn’t the issue with royal and white, for instance. Or forest and athletic gold.

—Ricko

Ricko|
April 18, 2010 at 8:07 pm |

By any chance, last night did McCarver say anything like, “Cards would have won this thing earlier if they didn’t have Jerry McGwire as their hitting coach”?

Nahhhhh, the guy just messed up. When you’re on the air that much those things happen.

Frank Gifford, first year in announcing booth, as Rams scored again in the process of absolutely pummelling his former Giant teammates: “Well, you know what they say, when it rains it snows.”

He also once said Garo Yepremian was “from Cypriot.”

Honest. Heard them both. So did my best buddy. Cracked us up.

—Ricko

Ricko|
April 18, 2010 at 8:11 pm |

Dan Rather, after first joining the CBS News team on the east coast after his years in Dallas, once said, “…according to a White Horse souse.”

–Ricko

traxel|
April 18, 2010 at 9:57 pm |

[quote comment=”386285″][quote comment=\”386281\”]Firstly: Black is marginal as a trim color for any team. It looks better with red than most other colors but I\’m willing to (kinda) accept it as a trim color. (49ers, Football Cardinals, Lions)

Secondly: Black is acceptable as a field color only for teams that have black as a team color. And then it can only be used on either the jersey or the pants, not both at the same time. No solid blacks top to bottom. In baseball it can only be used as a field color once a week TOPS. White Sox, Raiders, Penguins)

Thirdly: Black is not acceptable as a field color for any team without black as a team color. Ever. (A\’s, Royals, Rangers, Mets, Kansas State, Duke, Dallas Stars SHOULD be in this catagory)

All blacks are the worst in my book (basketball gets a pass on this as it is mildly acceptable there). The Stars, Penguins, Mizzou FB, Colorado FB, etc. are BORING and scare no one. Johnny Cash, Gary Player, Jerry Glanville, all lose points for being in black. To be PC about it, they are color challenged. Special, not gifted.[/quote]

What about these guys?

http://whiteafrican....
Any team with shorts gets a pass on the all black. I think it is because they have some leg showing to break it up a little.

As for Johnny Cash, I do enjoy his music (keep it in the regular rotation) but I cannot appreciate his all black attire. Just me. I don’t give him a pass just because of the music. The “Man in Black” thing is for image, as are uniforms. And I don’t like his uniform.

Don’t like PGA players in all black either. Mickelson looks like he’s trying to be half his age.

Jim BC|
April 18, 2010 at 9:58 pm |

I don’t know why I remember this but during the ’87 Canada Cup, Dan Kelly announced a goal as “Messy from Coffier”.

traxel|
April 18, 2010 at 10:09 pm |

One more thing. I really didn’t mind the Tenessee halloween black/orange jack-o-lanterns. One time only, kind of a holiday, I’m okay with that. Just don’t do it again. I wish the March 17th greens would have been a one time only. I hate those back every year.

Okay, two more things. On the West Virginia blacks, their blue is so dark it really doesn’t look any different. It is dumb to wear black for no reason, sorry – BFBS, especially when it is such a minor change, but even on the 42″ hidef TV I really can’t see much difference. Kind of like the Yankees – is it deep dark navy, or is it black? Same with the Chicago Bears. Not sayin it wouldn’t cause an uproar, but if they switched would it really look all that different?

traxel|
April 18, 2010 at 10:13 pm |

I like how the radio people giving the market updates always say “steenth” for 1/16. As in, “Sisco shares were up three an five steenths today”.

JTH|
April 18, 2010 at 10:55 pm |

Sitting in sec. 319 for Hawks/Preds right now… Teebz might be happy to hear the venom being spewed in the direction of a one Mr. Brent Sopel.

JTH|
April 18, 2010 at 10:59 pm |

Oops. I mean 324. (not that anyone but Matthew Robins would know the difference).

Matthew Robins|
April 18, 2010 at 11:59 pm |

[quote comment=”386338″]Oops. I mean 324. (not that anyone but Matthew Robins would know the difference).[/quote]
Every seat is great when they win!

Nick|
April 19, 2010 at 12:14 am |

[quote comment=”386263″][quote comment=”386259″][quote comment=”386226″]Pretty sad that William Milberger’s ‘tweak’ of the Cleveland Browns uniforms was taken from my Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia....). C’mon William, I highly encourage people coming up with their own designs, but please to not plagiarize somebody else’s work.[/quote]

I don’t think you’re being plagiarized – the Browns are actually using that as an alt this year – thus its not some readers tweak, but rather a tweak that is being implemented – your page was used to say “here’s what it will look like.”[/quote]

It’s NOT a 2010 alternate uniform for the Cleveland Browns. They have had the all-brown possibility since 2006 (when Reebok officially created them). They just wear them for road games. The Browns current 3rd uniform is the 1960 throwback uniform with numbers on the helmet and not TV numbers on the shoulders and this continues to be their 3rd uniform for the 2010 season as well.

And yes, that uniform was taken directly from my page (which I never mind if credit is properly given – Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License), but all he did was save my work and then re-uploaded onto his own website. That’s the only issue, nothing more.[/quote]

What a disgusting “alternate” combo. The Browns have a good, solid, traditional look. the addition of Brown leotards make them look like a 9 year old bantam team. Even stripes on those pants would not help. what a sickening tred, and sickening outcome.

This might have already been brought up or stated, so sorry if I am repeating, but it seems to be that when Phil categorizes the Sharks’ and Hurricanes’ (among others) black alternates as BFBS he really just doesn’t like the introduction of alternate jerseys. As he admitted, teams like that have black in their color schemes. Sticking with hockey, if the New York Islanders wanted to add an alternate jersey that was not the same color as either of their existing jerseys (white, navy) they would go with orange since that is their other color. So by that logic, in the same scenario the Sharks would go with black for their alternate because that’s their third color and they already have teal and white jerseys. When Phil says that they are making up a black jersey that never existed before, the real underlying reason is that they never had an alternate jersey. And the rise of alternate jerseys is a different phenomenon than BFBS.

Nick|
April 19, 2010 at 12:35 am |

With that actual dropshadow uni, the 49ers wore, in different seasons, a plain white helmet and a red helmet with a single silver stripe (although in some photos the stripe looks gold).

So, yeah, ‘94 is only time 49ers have worn a gold helmet with white pants. Ever.

—Ricko

*************************

Ricko,

Gotta disagree with you on the 49ers wearing white pants with Gold helmets in 1994 only.

In 1995 or 1996, the 49ers added the Black trim and drop shadow striping and all of that trim to their unis, and with those unis, allegedly “inspired” by the 1994 throwbacks, they added White pants to their uniform – perhaps not worn all of the games, but worn for many games in the first year or two after abandoning the Dick Nolan-Bill Walsh era unis.

In fact, I specifically remember watching the very first preseason game where the 49ers wore that uni – they played at home in the afternoon and wore White Jerseys/White pants/Gold helmet with the “new” post-Montana/Walsh striping and drop shadows.

My mother took one look at the new 49ers unis, with the 11 stipes surrounding a drop-shadowed shoulder sleeve logo, with black drop-shadows on 5 color numerals (crimson/white/gold/white/drop-shadow black), and she said – “Those uniforms look like what the prostitutes would wear if they had a football team!”

LI Phil|
April 19, 2010 at 12:52 am |

[quote comment=”386342″]This might have already been brought up or stated, so sorry if I am repeating, but it seems to be that when Phil categorizes the Sharks’ and Hurricanes’ (among others) black alternates as BFBS he really just doesn’t like the introduction of alternate jerseys. As he admitted, teams like that have black in their color schemes. Sticking with hockey, if the New York Islanders wanted to add an alternate jersey that was not the same color as either of their existing jerseys (white, navy) they would go with orange since that is their other color. So by that logic, in the same scenario the Sharks would go with black for their alternate because that’s their third color and they already have teal and white jerseys. When Phil says that they are making up a black jersey that never existed before, the real underlying reason is that they never had an alternate jersey. And the rise of alternate jerseys is a different phenomenon than BFBS.[/quote]

while you are correct in your assessment “phil just doesn’t like alternate jerseys,” i still say it falls into BFBS — if the isles added an orange jersey, that’s an alternate for alternate’s sake (or orange for orange sake)…the fact that a team has black in it’s colorscheme but chooses NOT to use it for a jersey is one thing — while it may be “easier” to “justify” it’s use, it’s still BFBS…as the eagles and pirates and even the CWS do (although in the white sox case, they have certainly worn black enough in the past to get a pass)

without the black alt they’re not BFBS…i don’t buy the “well what other color would they use” argument, because the don’t need the alt to begin with

boh|
April 19, 2010 at 5:37 am |

um, why did you include the MIAMI HEAT in this argument? really?! the HEAT?!?! their two primary colors are BLACK and red. they have ALWAYS had black road jerseys since the team entered the league in ’88. i mean, i think you have a good point when you bring up tennessee or usc or duke, but the heat?!? WOW. that’s really stretching it…

BuckeyeChief|
April 19, 2010 at 6:37 am |

This was probably already posted, but Indiana Hoosiers have new uni’s…

and we forgot all about their late 90’s black helmet and uni accents!!!

JTH|
April 19, 2010 at 7:18 am |

[quote comment=”386346″]um, why did you include the MIAMI HEAT in this argument? really?! the HEAT?!?! their two primary colors are BLACK and red. they have ALWAYS had black road jerseys since the team entered the league in ’88. i mean, i think you have a good point when you bring up tennessee or usc or duke, but the heat?!? WOW. that’s really stretching it…[/quote]
Who mentioned the Heat?

Anyway, let’s take a look. They started up in 1988 at a time when black was really starting to take off as a big merchandise-moving color and they essentially copied the colors of the Bulls and Trail Blazers (with a slight tweak). In my admittedly arbitrary system, they would have gone into the “bad BFBS” group.

JTH|
April 19, 2010 at 7:20 am |

[quote comment=”386347″]This was probably already posted, but Indiana Hoosiers have new uni’s…

and we forgot all about their late 90’s black helmet and uni accents!!![/quote]
No we didn’t, but some of us would like to.

Ricko|
April 19, 2010 at 7:58 am |

[quote comment=”386343″]With that actual dropshadow uni, the 49ers wore, in different seasons, a plain white helmet and a red helmet with a single silver stripe (although in some photos the stripe looks gold).

So, yeah, ‘94 is only time 49ers have worn a gold helmet with white pants. Ever.

—Ricko

*************************

Ricko,

Gotta disagree with you on the 49ers wearing white pants with Gold helmets in 1994 only.

In 1995 or 1996, the 49ers added the Black trim and drop shadow striping and all of that trim to their unis, and with those unis, allegedly “inspired” by the 1994 throwbacks, they added White pants to their uniform – perhaps not worn all of the games, but worn for many games in the first year or two after abandoning the Dick Nolan-Bill Walsh era unis.

In fact, I specifically remember watching the very first preseason game where the 49ers wore that uni – they played at home in the afternoon and wore White Jerseys/White pants/Gold helmet with the “new” post-Montana/Walsh striping and drop shadows.

My mother took one look at the new 49ers unis, with the 11 stipes surrounding a drop-shadowed shoulder sleeve logo, with black drop-shadows on 5 color numerals (crimson/white/gold/white/drop-shadow black), and she said – “Those uniforms look like what the prostitutes would wear if they had a football team!”[/quote]

That was discussed here before. Thought it was only preseason, and that’s why I didn’t count it. If they did wear them one or twice in regular season, then obviously it changes my point to “never worn gold helmets with white pants as their regular uniform.”

—Ricko

adios el-kabong|
April 19, 2010 at 10:44 am |

The Iron City Six were headed by well known local jazz musician Benny Benack, and were popular attractions at old Forbes (and Three Rivers) for decades. Their big hit, from 1960: “The Bucs Are Going All The Way” (Beat ’em, Bucs!) I was proud to play with Benny as a student in the 1970s. Benny has his own Wiki page, if you’re interested.

[quote comment=”386337″]Sitting in sec. 319 for Hawks/Preds right now… Teebz might be happy to hear the venom being spewed in the direction of a one Mr. Brent Sopel.[/quote]

Phenomenal! :o)

Sopel is a slob on the ice.

VPrime|
April 20, 2010 at 10:24 pm |

[quote comment=”386315″][quote comment=”386312″][quote comment=”386298″][quote comment=”386206″]The Chicago Blackhawks should be under the NHL “Bad” heading. I hate their black jerseys.[/quote]
Right. The Devils were listed as a “bad” example but at least give them credit for not foisting a primary black alternate on us!

Whew, what an issue of Uniwatch today. Quite a full plate for a Sunday…

-Jet[/quote]

Fully agree – while I agree with most of Phil and james list – but NJ – has stayed true to their red,black and white now for some time – no alternative , no nothing – and lets face it red, green and white – might have been distinctive – but it was not a great look[/quote]

while james listed the devils as “bad” BFBS, i wouldn’t agree with that — in fact, i wouldn’t even consider them to be BFBS — true, they switched from green to black (which i think was a bad switch), but i consider that as much as a color swap as anything else — they actually have a pretty distinctive look

i preferred their “throwbacks” (which were a much deeper hunter green than i remember) to their current set

now…if the devils were to come out with a THIRD jersey that IS black? that, my friends, would be BFBS

but swapping green for black? not so much[/quote]

I must say, as a Devils fan, that the red & green jerseys are absolutely hideous, and ditching the green for black was a very wise choice.